Jump to content

What every one wants?


meplanes1969
 Share

Recommended Posts

I feel that the likelihood of a PTO BoX is a long way off if not a pipedream, but I will always hold out hope that we will see it again some day. As an alternative my next favorite area of operations would be Italy (plus Sicily) with possible inclusion later of the Adriatic as there were some awesome air battles there too later in the war. Italy (with Mountains!) would be a bunch of fun and the devs would not have to add a bunch of new planes as most are already available, just a matter of building the map(s) and adding operational units to Campaign and Career modes.

 

DCS will not bring a true PTO to fruition as their approach seems pretty lackadaisical and haphazard in regards to their WW2 offerings so far especially in regards to the Pacific - why go to the trouble of building a Marianas map and then NOT provide enemy assets is rather confusing to me- and I can understand why as they seem focused on modern air combat. That's great because there is a market and a large community who want that, and their WW2 assets, at least the aircraft that are available are well modelled, but I do believe there is a large part of the combat flight sim community that would love to see a PTO addition become available somewhere and IL2 BoX is the logical best source for a PTO product being focused primarily on WW2 so I will continue to lobby politely for it whenever the topic comes up. 

 

Yeah there's a lot of roadblocks and difficulties to work around, but I doubt any of this is easy regardless of what theater they are dealing with and applaud the devs for what they have accomplished so far and frankly think they are quite capable of pulling this off if they get the support they require. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Algy-Lacey
27 minutes ago, Props said:

Yeah there's a lot of roadblocks and difficulties to work around, but I doubt any of this is easy regardless of what theater they are dealing with and applaud the devs for what they have accomplished so far and frankly think they are quite capable of pulling this off if they get the support they require.

 

In my opinion the current limitations with the game engine dictate what is possible when it comes to future BoX expansion. The developers can't do large naval fleets with masses of anti aircraft guns, without running into issues with time dilation, even 1 aircraft carrier's operations with aircraft and AA might be stretching it. The same goes for large bomber formations and their gunners. So a Pacific naval battle is out of the question until they work on the game engine or even start from scratch on a new game engine. Because of similar issues we probably won't see massive air battles like the Battle of Britain, the Defence of Malta or the massive B-17 formations over Berlin and other german cities, not until the game engine is improved in this area. I don't know what is possible in this regard, do they modify the existing engine to utilise more CPU cores? Or will they have to start over, perhaps keeping the existing 3d models?

 

So, looking at it this way, focussing on what is achievable, that means smaller tactical engagements in the next module. Late war eastern front, Land based PTO or Invasion of Italy would be good choices imho. It will be interesting to see what the developers do to give the appearance of a mass-scale invasion in BoN without making our PC's grind to a halt.

 

Back on topic, I don't think we will see a fully fledged PTO module involving naval battles and carriers in this incarnation of the game engine. I think 1 vs 1 planes packs would be a good expansion of the 1c business model, but that is not based on any expertise on my part, only on what I would like to see.

 

Algy-Lacey

Edited by Algy-Lacey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MajorMagee
On 10/14/2021 at 3:41 AM, meplanes1969 said:

Simple one this a Zero fighter as the next collector plane.

why? because tell me anyone on this forum who would not buy one?

would we care it would for now be on its own with no historical map to fly on,and no wildcats to mow down or hellcats to chase around the sky? for now nobody would care ( we would fly it on the moon )

can it be done? I am sure it can it would be the devs pride and joy much the same as the beautiful hurricane.

Has anyone else done one? not really,war thunder one of its best sellers ( no surprise )

well the other flight sim the one if we mention we get banned no!

we all want it we all know it would sell well so give me a good reason why it should not be the next plane in the collector planes list?

Its no rocket science but we need a Zero

 

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/196313/mitsubishi-a6m2-zero/fbclid/IwAR1U6zBD_AiDkygem2taosYOPbOglBDAx9augwVaZtUKF0JFWrhqD3hJNgU/ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

I know British and Commonwealth air activity was significant in the PTO, but it always seemed to be happening away from American operations, which makes it more difficult to pull in Americans and Europeans in the same module.

 

Both times (that I'm aware of) that the Royal Navy undertook carrier ops in the PTO they were working directly with the US Navy.

 

First time was in 1943 Royal Navy fleet carrier HMS Victorious, temporarily re-named USS Robin for security purposes, joined USS Saratoga as part of the US Navy task force.

 

Interesting story as the US Navy had just lost most of it's carriers and the Victorious was loaned along with it's ships crew and aircrews who subsequently flew US Navy Wildcat & Avengers in USN colours and roundels to fill the void so that operations in the Pacifc by the USA could continue.

 

5-USN-F4F-4-pilots-Victorious-IWM-A-19650-mod-768x489-1.jpg.159bc3ffd9cb82cfa8e59c4329b54562.jpg

 

The pilots of the U.S. Navy VF-5 squadron aboard HMS Victorious. (Image source: U.S. National Archives)

 

http://armchairgeneral.com/uss-robin-the-victorious-u-s-carrier-that-didnt-exist.htm

https://militaryhistorynow.com/2021/05/05/hms-victorious-meet-the-british-aircraft-carrier-that-joined-the-u-s-navy/

http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-04CV-Victorious.htm

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

Second time, that seems to be better known even thought the 2 part documentary below calls it "The Forgotten Fleet", was in 1945 when the Royal Navy provided a whole fleet that worked with and as a part of two US Navy task forces.

 

British Pacific Fleet (BPF) aircraft worked so closely with their US allies that they even changed their roundels to incoporate a bar in an effort to aid identification.

 

399533757_BPFandUSN.jpg.d685a20cb43561e5e034a220ecce46eb.jpg

 

USN F6F-5 Hellcat seen from BPF Avenger while part of the same US Navy Task Force (Image source: Imperial War Museum)

 

Spoiler

 

Edited by Pict
Tweak to reduce page size
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FTC_Burdokva

A big no for not only the A6M Zero but for any PTO plane.

 

And this isn't related to the theater in general (although there are others that I would prefer more) but the concept of putting effort in creating random CPs out of context.

 

We already have one - the Macchi C.202. A lovely plane, fun to fly, beautiful looks, was a very important fighter plane in the MTO. Yet, it's wholly out of place in either Eastern Front expansion. It did not appear in the East at all in 1941 (in fact, it was only entering combat in the MTO), only about a dozen were sent in Summer 1942 to the Italian Expeditionary Corps in Russia, they saw very limited combat (about a couple dozen ground attack and recon missions) and then in early 1943 the Italians were pulled from the East.

 

A lovely plane that's almost  useless to the sim outside of dogfight multiplayer servers. Why it was chosen? Because it's famous and it would sell!

 

Yet, I am pretty certain that the much neglected Macchi C.200 would not only have added much more value to BoX (because it actually fought in some numbers in Russia) but given it actually had context to exist in, it would have sold better over the long run. I bet that the IAR-80/81 will sell better than the C.202. and I should note that I, personally, love the Folgore. 

 

Don't waste resources on random CPs. We need some important planes missing from each of the current BoX installments - focus on these or on anything that would add to immediate future installments.

 

 

Edited by FTC_Burdokva
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, So_ein_Feuerball said:

Never truly cared about the PTO, I would much prefer Italy as a theater. 
 

Not only are the Italian planes quite interesting, the allied planes of the era would also fall into an as of yet unexplored area, especially the Spitfire LF MkV, late P40s, perhaps the Spitfire Mk VIII, various versions of the P38, etc. etc.

 

Niche - Computer Games

sub-niche 1 - flight sims

sub-niche 2 - combat flight sims

sub-niche 3 - WWII combat flight sims

sub-niche 4 - “Italian planes are interesting”

 

😛

  • Like 1
  • Haha 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

meplanes1969

so I suppose for now I will have to make do with flying in the La5 zero skin in meplanes flying tigers mod over at the mods page 😉🤗

lots of screenshots ( really someone should get into a lot trouble for plugging  his own stuff 🤪 )

The La 5 flys like a brick and has about 5 secs worth of ammo,in actual fact the la5 flys great but nothing compared to the Zero.

But for now I will have to live in a land of dreams 🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, meplanes1969 said:

The La 5 flys like a brick and has about 5 secs worth of ammo,in actual fact the la5 flys great but nothing compared to the Zero.

But for now I will have to live in a land of dreams

 

The last bit is the only bit you got right, you really are dreaming.

 

The La-5 had 2 x 20mm ShVAK cannons, 170 rounds per gun and an 800 rounds per minuite rate of fire.  To equate that to seconds of trigger time here is the calculation;

 

(170 / 800) * 60

12.75 seconds

 

That's more than enough to down multiple opponents, assuming your aim is good and your not sprating the sky like you're flying somthing with 6 x 50's aboard.

 

The La-5 would wipe the floor with any Zero and the La-5FN would do it a little faster. Why are you thinking that an La-5 is anything remotely like a Zero beats me? Closest thing to a Zero in IL2 BOX currently would be the I-16, slow, aerobatic and similar armament set up.

 

Out of interest, you are talking about La-5 or La-5FN ?

Edited by Pict
Link to comment
Share on other sites

meplanes1969

I did not make the skins,but some La5 and La5FN were used as zeros as repaints.

I find it hard to believe a La5 would wipe the floor of a zero ( unless it was flown by a muppet 🤪 )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pict said:

Closest thing to a Zero in IL2 BOX currently would be the I-16, slow, aerobatic and similar armament set up.

 

I'd argue the Hurricane is much closer to the Zero. The I-16 has a much better roll rate that radically changes its capabilities; beyond that the I-16 is relatively unstable, which makes it unsuitable for a lot of what the Zero could do at low speeds.

 

5 hours ago, FTC_Burdokva said:

We already have one - the Macchi C.202. A lovely plane, fun to fly, beautiful looks, was a very important fighter plane in the MTO. Yet, it's wholly out of place in either Eastern Front expansion.

 

I agree with you in general, but the Zero specifically is nothing like the Macchi in terms of historical relevance.

 

The Zero fought essentially from China to Hawaii east to west, and Alaska to Australia from north to south. Few WWII planes can claim that level of global impact.

 

In terms of what aircraft deserves to be in any combat flight sim, not just a specific Battle of X, the Zero far outweighs any Italian plane.

Edited by oc2209
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, meplanes1969 said:

I find it hard to believe a La5 would wipe the floor of a zero

 

The La.5 was built to compete with the latest fighters that the Germans were producing in 1943, which it did. The La.5FN was a development of the La.5 that was built the gain superiority over those German fighters and it did so well.

 

How do you think the Zero would perform against the best the Luftwaffe had to offer in 1943?

 

The Zero is from a previous time, all be it just 2 or three years, during WWII that's a massive difference. Later Zero"s were worse fighters than the early ones as they gained weight and were overtaken by all of their contemporaies. Best Zeros are probably the A6M2-21 & A6M3 and it's best era would have been late 1941 and 1942.

 

La.5 versus Zero would see the La.5 control the fight and the Zero turn relentlessly in defensive manouvers until out of fuel. La.5 could attack as and when it was the right moment or disengage if needs be.

 

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

I'd argue the Hurricane is much closer to the Zero.

 

That would work too and I was in a toss up to choose between them. In the end the I-16's armament similarites won through in my mind. But both the Hurricane MK.II and the I-16 were contemoraries of the Zero and even met them in combat, so they are both about as close as we have in IL2 BOX.

 

I would really like to try Hurricane MK.II's against Zero's after reading "Hurricnes over the Jungle" a book by an RAF pilot about the Battle of Singpore and the Japanes invasion of Java.

Edited by Pict
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, meplanes1969 said:

I did not make the skins,but some La5 and La5FN were used as zeros as repaints.

I find it hard to believe a La5 would wipe the floor of a zero ( unless it was flown by a muppet 🤪 )

 

Aye - If poorly flown Hellcats fell to well flown Zero's, then even more so would an La-5.

 

The reality of any fight is what the pilot actually does, not what he should do in theory in order to control the fight.

Even then, I'll point once again to the story of the solo Oscar pilot that held off 2 (properly flown)  P-38's until after 20 minutes, the P-38's gave up and went home.

 

 

 

 

In case it needs pointing out, the Oscar was less capable than the Zero.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Gambit21
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

I agree with you in general, but the Zero specifically is nothing like the Macchi in terms of historical relevance.

 

The Zero fought essentially from China to Hawaii east to west, and Alaska to Australia from north to south. Few WWII planes can claim that level of global impact.

 

In terms of what aircraft deserves to be in any combat flight sim, not just a specific Battle of X, the Zero far outweighs any Italian plane.

 

They also fought in the Indian Ocean, but so what?

 

They never operated in the West at all. They never fought at the, Battle of France, the Battle of Britain, in Africa, or the Eastern Front, not over Malta or Siciliy nor over Italy. These places all saw Italian planes and their pilots and crew fighting gallently and sometimes paying the ulitimate price for being there. There in the later two instances being their own homeland. Not all pilots fought over their own homeland and those that did get an extra measure of respect from me.

 

Some Battle fo Britain pilots that also flew at Malta reckoned that Malta was more intense. George Beurling spoke highly of the Italian fighters and their pilots that he faced over Malta and if anyone would know Beurling would and if anyone would say it straight Beurling would.

 

I think it's just nonesense to try an put one country and it's aircraft and pilots down to try and highlight the expolits of another aircraft, one that you want to play with on your PC. It flies in the face of reality and smacks of deep rooted disrespect for others and their history. I really don't think it's cool or nessesary.

 

The Zero speaks for itself and doesn't need anyone to point it at the Italians in a disrespectful fashion. By all means push your case for your Zero, but don't push it that far that you would offend anyone.

Edited by Pict
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yo-Yo_Kirby

Nobody here is suggesting or saying the Zero fought in Europe or Africa.

 

Adding the Zero naturally means there will be a lot of demand for the Pacific Theater in the game by the virtue of its fame and prominence there. But adding the Pacific is obviously a huge technical challenge in the current state of the game engine. And there are more planes of greater priority that would be of much more immediate benefit to theaters within the current of IL-2.

 

In no way does oc2209's statement downplay the achievements of any Italian ace in the MC. 202. Neither does it inflate Saburo Sakai, Hiroyoshi Nishizawa, Tetsuzo Iwamoto, and any other Zero ace's achievements.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pict said:

I think it's just nonesense to try an put one country and it's aircraft and pilots down to try and highlight the expolits of another aircraft, one that you want to play with on your PC. It flies in the face of reality and smacks of deep rooted disrespect for others and their history. I really don't think it's cool or nessesary.

 

The Zero speaks for itself and doesn't need anyone to point it at the Italians in a disrespectful fashion. By all means push your case for your Zero, but don't push it that far that you would offend anyone.

 

This isn't the first time someone here has imputed emotional attachments to my arguments. I wasn't insulting Italians by stating a fact; and that fact is, Italian planes (fighters specifically) were built in very small numbers, operated in a limited number of theaters, and by those reasons alone, had a much lesser impact on WWII than Japanese planes.  

 

I was thinking of this statement in particular, regarding the Macchi:

 

11 hours ago, FTC_Burdokva said:

A lovely plane that's almost  useless to the sim outside of dogfight multiplayer servers. Why it was chosen? Because it's famous and it would sell!

 

Operating from this premise, and the precedent it set in the game, I'm saying that the Zero is a much better candidate for shoehorning a plane into the game, if the criteria are being famous and potentially selling well. A Zero is infinitely more famous and, I further assume, would generate more attention for the game overall, than any Italian aircraft.

 

That's not an insult. It's an estimate based on probability.

 

5 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Aye - If poorly flown Hellcats fell to well flown Zero's, then even more so would an La-5.

 

The reality of any fight is what the pilot actually does, not what he should do in theory in order to control the fight.

Even then, I'll point once again to the story of the solo Oscar pilot that held off 2 (properly flown)  P-38's until after 20 minutes, the P-38's gave up and went home.

 

In case it needs pointing out, the Oscar was less capable than the Zero.

 

 

Not to mention that Thomas McGuire died trying to shoot down a solo Oscar. I'm assuming that's different than the story you're referring to.

 

Or one of the best quotes regarding a Zero, from Joe Foss: "If you're alone and you meet a Zero, run like hell--you're outnumbered."

Edited by oc2209
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eisenfaustus
8 hours ago, Pict said:

They never fought at the, Battle of France

The Italians did? Thought they only entered the fray in octobre 1940…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ITAF_Airone1989
9 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

The Italians did? Thought they only entered the fray in octobre 1940…

Italy attacked France one week before they surrendered.

We advanced few km for a couple of day, then we were forced to retreat inside our border waiting for the German to finish the job 😅

 

Probably the worst Italian operation of the entire war, it wasn't a disaster just because there was no time

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ITAF_Rani
On 10/15/2021 at 8:55 AM, So_ein_Feuerball said:

Not only are the Italian planes quite interesting, the allied planes of the era would also fall into an as of yet unexplored area, especially the Spitfire LF MkV, late P40s, perhaps the Spitfire Mk VIII, various versions of the P38, etc. etc.

Could be a dream....

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

meplanes1969

Early planes and early war scenarios have much more game playing value within the sim.

what I am getting at is esp the VR users flying circus ww1 planes are a blast.

when some people say a zero collector plane would have no role within the sim is a mystery to me,just playing it in quick combat 1v1 v p-40 or hurricane or anything else would have lots more fun playable experience than lots of other planes already in the sim or in future expansions.

I was a big fan of the me-262 and just love flying it but what can you really do with it,we do not have vast streams of bombers it can shot down!any decent me-262 pilot never need get killed just keep your speed ( really only on take off and landing ) once you get altitude and speed who can catch you.

dogfighting is no fun in the 262 and you are really asking for trouble ( I bet I could beat it in a i16 in a dogfight ) so it’s only real role within the game is fast hit and run tactics,the Arado jet is the same as is the mosquito etc

so my point is I much prefer early war scenarios and ww1 planes.

zeros were built for dogfighting even on their own as a collector plane they should add much more playability than any of the later war planes.

for me I never fly the me262 or do I think I will fly the arado jet much as they get boring very quickly for me as you can not really do much with them.

give me fokker v camel zero v wildcat,p-40 hellcat,me109 v spitfire etc any day.

how anyone can say a zero does not fit in any sim is beyond me 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eisenfaustus

I like early war planes as well - I‘d absolutely love a Battle of France for example. An I-153 soviet biplane fighter would also deliver what you ask for (a very maneuverable Turner) - but it would fit the setting and could be used for career. 
But anyone who was fighting a zero had to fight the same way you describe why the 262 is boring to you. If you fight a better turning enemy horizontally you lose. Tactically the Spad xiii fights the Albatros similar how a 262 would fight a tempest. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bremspropeller
15 hours ago, Pict said:

The last bit is the only bit you got right, you really are dreaming.

 

The La-5 had 2 x 20mm ShVAK cannons, 170 rounds per gun and an 800 rounds per minuite rate of fire.  To equate that to seconds of trigger time here is the calculation;

 

(170 / 800) * 60

12.75 seconds

 

That's more than enough to down multiple opponents, assuming your aim is good and your not sprating the sky like you're flying somthing with 6 x 50's aboard.

 

The La-5 would wipe the floor with any Zero and the La-5FN would do it a little faster. Why are you thinking that an La-5 is anything remotely like a Zero beats me? Closest thing to a Zero in IL2 BOX currently would be the I-16, slow, aerobatic and similar armament set up.

 

Out of interest, you are talking about La-5 or La-5FN ?

 

Are we falking gamey set-ups (then I'd completely agree with you).

 

When talking real-world, I'd throw in the La couldn't operate from carriers unless re-designed. And it didn't have any kind of useable range for the PTO, which is a serious drawback shared by most ETO-designed aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, oc2209 said:

This isn't the first time someone here has imputed emotional attachments to my arguments. I wasn't insulting Italians by stating a fact;

 

This doesn't really surprise me. Here is what you said;

 

16 hours ago, oc2209 said:

In terms of what aircraft deserves to be in any combat flight sim, not just a specific Battle of X, the Zero far outweighs any Italian plane.

 

As an example of how that comes across to me, lets say anyone, pick a developer of combat flights sims, Microsoft, Microprose, Janes or what have you, say they produced an air battle over Malta scenario and took your advice, replacing all and any Italian aircraft that were historically involved in that air battle with Zeros.

 

How well would that go down in the market place?

What would it do to their reputation?

Would you yourself buy it?

 

That's what you said , that's how I read it and those are the questions that I take out of it.

 

Could be you think that's fact, could also be you don't see that as an insult to the Italian's. I wasn't questioning what you thought about what you said, I'm highlighting how it can be perceived.

 

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

 

Let try this on the other foot and see what it looks like.

 

Let's say we change the Zero for the Macchi 202 and Italian aircraft for Japanese aircraft and look at that sentence once more.

 

===In terms of what aircraft deserves to be in any combat flight sim, not just a specific Battle of X, the Macchi 202 far outweighs any Japanese plane.===

 

Now lets have some random developer of combat flight sims produce a title depicting...let's think of somthing similar to Malta...mmmm Midway Island. Now lets replace all the Japanes aircraft that flew at the Battle of Midway with Macchi 202's, (never mind the carriers, we can do airstarts).

 

I imagine you can see where this is going, but lets play it out and ask the same questions as we did above.

 

How well would that go down in the market place?

What would it do to their reputation?

Would you yourself buy it?

 

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

 

Try that with any combination of aircraft and nationalities and ask the additional question. Do you think anyone with find this offensive?

 

Try the rinse & repeat method by replacing British aircraft at the Battle of Britain, American aircraft at Pearl Harbour, German aircraft over Berin, or Soviet aircraft over Stalingrad & Moscow. and so on.

 

For me the answer to all this was clear and remains clear. The likelihood that noboby will be offended is miniscule, therefore this risk off offence is major.

 

21 hours ago, FTC_Burdokva said:

A lovely plane that's almost  useless to the sim outside of dogfight multiplayer servers. Why it was chosen? Because it's famous and it would sell!

 

10 hours ago, oc2209 said:

Operating from this premise, and the precedent it set in the game

 

No that was neither a premise nor a preceedent for anything, that was simply the opinion of @FTC_Burdokva as to why the Macchi 202 was chosen to be included. It may or may not be accurate, but it's not the benchmark that the devloper has clearly set.

 

That benchmark was set from the start of the BOX series and the Macchi 202 met that as it was historically there. It really is that simple and it really has been followed by the developers fairly ridgedly. The rockets on the MK.9 Spitfire, although they were only used onnce in combat. Bombs but no rockets on the Tempest, as althought the Tempest was cleared to used both, only bombs were used in combat and only on a handful of mission at that. These are clear expamles of how well defined the line is. If it was used operationaly in theatre, then it's allowed in BOX.

 

That's what this whole debate is about. To get a Zero in game without having Battle of scenarion with the maps and all the other aircraft etc., that go with it, would require a massive change of business model by the developer.

 

Could be that will change, could be you will be the one to swing it...time will tell. If it does change I for one would happily add a Zero to my collection and fly it against anything and everything in the my hanger, including the La.5, as I really enjoy trying aircraft against each other regardless of historical background.

 

I also like the historical side and the maps and campaigns that go with it and I appreciate the effort that goes into producing them. The big question for me is, how would such a new business model affect future all in add-on of the kind we currently enjoy? Would we lose more than we gain?

 

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

 

For the record I like Japanese aircraft and look forward to seeing them in BOX as and when thay get here. This I think is just a question of time. I like US Navy aircraft too and would prefer to see both in BOX and with some historical context.

 

I've read plenty on the subject both including;

 

Samurai by Sabouro Sakai

Hellcat - the F6F in World War II by Barrett Tillman

 

Samurai is well know, but Hellcat paints a picture of the sheer scale the US Navy operations reached when the Essex & Independence classes of fast carriers started come on-line in numbers as the island hopping campaign gathered momentum. Both books compliment each other in this sense and the reader gets a better picture of what the IJNAF Zero pilot were facing as time wore on.

 

I'd recommend them both to anyone.

Edited by Pict
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FTC_Burdokva
11 hours ago, oc2209 said:

I was thinking of this statement in particular, regarding the Macchi:

 

 

Operating from this premise, and the precedent it set in the game, I'm saying that the Zero is a much better candidate for shoehorning a plane into the game, if the criteria are being famous and potentially selling well. A Zero is infinitely more famous and, I further assume, would generate more attention for the game overall, than any Italian aircraft.

 

I should point out I was very sarcastic when I typed that. Again, I love the C.202 but I find it pointless in either if the BoX installments we have. The C.200 would have been much more useful, even if not as prolific in terms of fame.

 

Worse yet, the C.202 was the main Italian fighter of 1942-43. Assuming we do get an MTO based expansion, this means the C.202 being an existing CP will be left out.

 

In my humble opinion, CPs should be planes that while not prolific or famous enough to warrant being in the "main" game are still important to the historical scenario. 

 

The Zero is a must for a PTO setting. What do you get by making it a random CP of context now vs. loosing it as a plane for an expansion down the road?

 

@Pict you should read my comment above and not quote me of context. The C.202 was a poor choice because it was not over Moscow. Not in 1941, not in 1942 either. And it was released as the Axis plane for the CE of Battle of Moscow.

Edited by FTC_Burdokva
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, FTC_Burdokva said:

@Pict you should read my comment above and not quote me of context. The C.202 was a poor choice because it was not over Moscow. Not in 1941, not in 1942 either. And it was released as the Axis plane for the CE of Battle of Moscow.

 

Aye fair enough, that went right past me from the start, thanks for clearing that up :good:

 

I was under the incorrect impression that it was released as it was historicaly present, all be it in small numbers and saw a limited amount of action.

 

So am I correct in saying that the Macchi 202 was historically present on the Stalingrad map, but was released later with the Moscow map?

 

14 minutes ago, FTC_Burdokva said:

The Zero is a must for a PTO setting. What do you get by making it a random CP of context now vs. loosing it as a plane for an expansion down the road?

 

Agreed, in fact I said this much further up the board.

Edited by Pict
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bremspropeller
13 minutes ago, FTC_Burdokva said:

Worse yet, the C.202 was the main Italian fighter of 1942-43. Assuming we do get an MTO based expansion, this means the C.202 being an existing CP will be left out.

 

So they'll just make a different sub-version (like with the ducktons of 109s) and add the 205.

No real issue there IMHO.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Are we falking gamey set-ups (then I'd completely agree with you).

 

When talking real-world, I'd throw in the La couldn't operate from carriers unless re-designed. And it didn't have any kind of useable range for the PTO, which is a serious drawback shared by most ETO-designed aircraft.

 

We both appear to falking with the same kind of dyslexic keyboards as I'm doing more fixing typo's than typing these days :biggrin:

 

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

 

I was actulay talking about both, as I was looking specificaly at a head to head combat rather than a one trumps the other spec. comparison. In this way if the simulation is any good it should™ follow the reality enought to offer a similar outcome.

 

Needless to say any fighter can beat any other fighter in a dogfight given the right circumstances. I'm just referring to the fact that these two fighters were from different era's and so on, but you clearly understood this.

 

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

 

Sure the La-5 was no carrier bird, nor did it have anything like the range of a Zero, but I guess an A-380 would beat them all on range and passenger number, so it's not really where I was going.

 

 

Edited by Pict
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WIS-Redcoat

Teasers like this make me lament that we don’t have a battle of France series of aircraft.  I love the early war stuff.  Sadly I think once Normandy is done, they will pass over Bob, Bof, and even PTO and it’ll be some late war Russian thing.  You can bet on that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bremspropeller
34 minutes ago, Pict said:

We both appear to falking with the same kind of dyslexic keyboards as I'm doing more fixing typo's than typing these days

 

Indeed! It's atrocious - my brain's already with the next word, making my fingers stumble over themselves...

 

35 minutes ago, Pict said:

Sure the La-5 was no carrier bird, nor did it have anything like the range of a Zero, but I guess an A-380 would beat them all on range and passenger number, so it's not really where I was going.

 

Ture, but initially, the zero did have enough of a performance margin on the merrican planes to actually project and enfore airpower. As they got lazy and didn't have an ace up their sleeve, that was mostly gone in 1943 and they had enough range to fly to the place where they'd be shot down.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Ture, but initially, the zero did have enough of a performance margin on the merrican planes to actually project and enfore airpower. As they got lazy and didn't have an ace up their sleeve, that was mostly gone in 1943 and they had enough range to fly to the place where they'd be shot down.

 

Very ture :biggrin:

 

Waht's the use of a tailhook and all that range if it's just put your outdated fuselage in the modern crosshairs.

 

On 10/14/2021 at 7:49 PM, PatrickAWlson said:

I know for sure that at least ten people would buy Battle of France.

 

32 minutes ago, WIS-Redcoat said:

Teasers like this make me lament that we don’t have a battle of France series of aircraft.

 

4 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

I like early war planes as well - I‘d absolutely love a Battle of France for example.

 

I'll throw my hat in the ring to make an unlucky 13 :biggrin:

 

8 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

The Italians did? Thought they only entered the fray in octobre 1940…

 

Yes, as @ITAF_Airone1989said above, it wasn't a total fiasco, but it wasn't far off.

 

In the air combat that took place on the Italian French border area in the south, the spotlight was shone on what was to become a unique ace, Pierre Le Gloan, who wound up as an ace on both sides.

 

In one mission he and one other French pilot flying Dewoitine D.520 fighters attacked a group of 12 Fiat Cr.42's and he downed 3 off while the other pilot downed 1. Le Gloan downed andother Fiat Cr.42 and a Fiat BR.20 bomber on the retur home to make 5 kill and an ace in one flight.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Le_Gloan

 

Brave move or stupid or calculated, you decide, not forgetting that the Cr.42 was a great turn fighter and you have to watch out for them ;)

 

Edited by Pict
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ojisan_Mjoelner
On 10/14/2021 at 9:41 AM, meplanes1969 said:

Simple one this a Zero fighter as the next collector plane.

why? because tell me anyone on this forum who would not buy one?

would we care it would for now be on its own with no historical map to fly on,and no wildcats to mow down or hellcats to chase around the sky? for now nobody would care ( we would fly it on the moon )

can it be done? I am sure it can it would be the devs pride and joy much the same as the beautiful hurricane.

Has anyone else done one? not really,war thunder one of its best sellers ( no surprise )

well the other flight sim the one if we mention we get banned no!

we all want it we all know it would sell well so give me a good reason why it should not be the next plane in the collector planes list?

Its no rocket science but we need a Zero

 

 I would indeed buy it, Zero vs Spit 5 and P-40E with realistic boost, northern Australia ´42/43

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BlitzPig_EL

I'd love to see the D.520, Hawk 75(oh baby!), Lioré et Olivier 45, MS 406... in the sim.  Very interesting, and little seen in sims, aircraft.

The Curtiss Hawk was used just in about every theatre of the war, and by both sides.  The D.520 was probably the pinnacle of Armée de l'Air  fighters, and should be in any sim based on how it looks alone.  :good:  The LeO 45 is just an outstanding design.  It's a pity that the French government and the Army command put so much faith and money in the outdated Maginot Line, instead of speeding up development of their air force.  As it was, the French put up a better than most think defense against the Luftwaffe, and helped set the stage for the RAF's clouting of the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

As it was, the French put up a better than most think defense against the Luftwaffe, and helped set the stage for the RAF's clouting of the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain.

 

I'd agree with that on all counts. It's certainly not well known, not much more now that it was at the time.

 

According to the very well put together documentary linked below, the French fighters faced with numerical superiority of 3-1  accounted for some 1000 Luftwaffe aircraft shot down for a loss of some 700 of their own and 200 pilots killed during the battle.

 

To which I would add that there were many Polish pilots flying with them who subsequently went to the UK and fought in the Battle of Britain.

 

I set this to start at the part where it mentions the statistic above, but it's a good documentary about the battle of France and has facintating interviews with many veterans not so long after the battle, say the late 1960's or early 1970's. A good interview with the ace Jean Accart starts at around the 25:00 mark.

 

Spoiler

 

 

I think a Battle of France would be even more interesting if it also included the German advance through the "Low Countries" as the Dutch Fokker D.XXI fighter, like the French MS.410 & Hawk 75 were used by the Finnish Air Force, so there would be some interchangablity one way or the other with any potential Gulf of Finland / Battle of Leningrad scenario. Plus it could make use of the BoBP map for the camaigns & missions. The WWI Arras map could get some use in that way too.

 

There would also be the RAF and the Regia Aeronautica as mentioned above, plus an oppertunity to expand the Luftwaffe in the hangar with earlier stuff like the Bf-109E-1, & E-3, possibly even the Bf-109 Dora (who knows?), Ju-87B and so on.

 

It would also offer huge potential for tanks battles...not that any of that would be likely to happen as for some reason the early WWII battles get consistently overlooked. Which is shame really as it's a most interesting time period, it's almost like the Axis forces aren't allowed to be seen to gain any ground, just the big retreat to the final defeat.

Edited by Pict
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Pict said:

As an example of how that comes across to me, lets say anyone, pick a developer of combat flights sims, Microsoft, Microprose, Janes or what have you, say they produced an air battle over Malta scenario and took your advice, replacing all and any Italian aircraft that were historically involved in that air battle with Zeros.

 

How well would that go down in the market place?

What would it do to their reputation?

Would you yourself buy it?

 

That's what you said , that's how I read it and those are the questions that I take out of it.

 

Could be you think that's fact, could also be you don't see that as an insult to the Italian's. I wasn't questioning what you thought about what you said, I'm highlighting how it can be perceived.

 

Honestly, I don't really care if people go out of their way to misinterpret my words, and then become offended. My statements are pretty simple and straightforward. It's only by circuitous mental gymnastics that anyone can turn my words into an insult.

 

I never mentioned: the bravery of Italian pilots; the skill of Italian pilots; the quality of Italian planes.

 

Never mentioned a single one of those topics. Therefore, the qualitative comparisons you're bringing up are strictly your own inferences, not mine.

 

I also never said that Japanese planes should replace any other nation's planes. That is, again, 100% your inference.

 

I'm saying this, and only this:

 

IL-2 is a combat flight simulator. Japanese planes are a critical part of WWII aviation history. Since the devs don't have infinite resources and infinite time, since we must make the unpalatable choice between planes we want most and planes we want but could live without, we must therefore prioritize what planes, for lack of a better word, deserve to be in the sim more than others; and I'm saying the global and historical impact of Japanese aircraft is such that their omission from the sim is increasingly glaring as time goes on.

 

8 hours ago, Pict said:

That's what this whole debate is about. To get a Zero in game without having Battle of scenarion with the maps and all the other aircraft etc., that go with it, would require a massive change of business model by the developer.

 

Right, and I'm saying the old business model cannot work with a Pacific module. Because above and beyond building a map, the devs would have to make an unprecedented array of complex ships (lest people whine that the water maps feel empty), and there would be large gaps in the lineup due to the lack of info on certain Japanese planes, such that the traditional 5/5 split between Axis/Allied would prove to be difficult, most likely impossible, to maintain.

 

So, with all that in mind, I think the idea of introducing a Pacific module piecemeal is the only logical choice. Rather than start by building an empty map with nothing to populate it, or building the ships with nowhere to use them, why not start with planes that we can fly in QMB? With the only drawback being that the maps aren't appropriate.

 

5 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Ture, but initially, the zero did have enough of a performance margin on the merrican planes to actually project and enfore airpower. As they got lazy and didn't have an ace up their sleeve, that was mostly gone in 1943 and they had enough range to fly to the place where they'd be shot down.

 

Splitting hairs, I'd like to add that the Japanese were losing their edge well before 1943 and the arrival of more powerful American planes.

 

The reasons are many, as to why America was able to fight the Japanese effectively regardless of the Zero's qualities, throughout much of 1942.

 

Those reasons include:

 

America's ability to read Japanese communications.

America's use of effective shipborne radar.

America's use of effective airborne radios.

American pilots' tactical cohesion in aerial combat, facilitated both by training and radios.

 

The strikes against the Japanese in particular (i.e, things they had control over) are as follows:

 

Pilots' fatalistic attitudes towards combat.

Lack of radios with which to form tactical cohesion.

Lack of effective air-sea rescue services to save downed pilots.

Lack of effective supply chain to far-flung airbases.

Lack of proper medical attention, specifically for harsh jungle living conditions, thereby drastically reducing pilot efficacy.

 

So, all that said, none of the above has to do with the fighting qualities of the Zero.

 

If the Japanese had all or even some of the things they lacked, the Zero would have been able to fight much, much more effectively than it did, for a longer period of time. The fact that it achieved as much as it did in spite of severe Japanese shortcomings, is a testament to the inherent qualities of the plane.

Edited by oc2209
Unintentional merge of posts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

Japanese planes are a critical part of WWII aviation history

 

The clue here should World War and that then makes all participants critical. Can we really say that Japanes planes are more critical another nations planes? You seem to think they are more critical than Italian planes, so I assume that you would see them as more critical than French planes. Where does the end?

 

Which nations planes do you see as more critical? If critical means they deserve to be in the simulation, who do we leave out? ... of the World War.

 

Please provide a list, I for one would be facinated to see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Pict said:

 

The clue here should World War and that then makes all participants critical. Can we really say that Japanes planes are more critical another nations planes? You seem to think they are more critical than Italian planes, so I assume that you would see them as more critical than French planes. Where does the end?

 

Which nations planes do you see as more critical? If critical means they deserve to be in the simulation, who do we leave out? ... of the World War.

 

Please provide a list, I for one would be facinated to see it.

 

Again, I want to emphasize this point since you seemingly ignored it:

 

We are placed in an unnatural and uncomfortable position of having to choose between which planes are worth putting in a finite simulation, and which we can live without.

 

It is an artificial choice. It is not an academic one; it is not a declaration of the inherent value and sacrifices of a given nation. Having to choose which planes to put in a sim is not a matter of personally slapping a Frenchman or Italian across the face and spitting at their feet.

 

So, that said:

 

French and Italian aircraft did not dramatically alter the course of WWII. Japanese aircraft did.

 

French and Italian aircraft were not famous for their extreme agility (at the cost of personal protection). Japanese aircraft are.

 

10,000+ Zeros were built. Can you name a French or Italian aircraft with similar production numbers?

 

5,000+ Oscars were built. 3,000+ Franks. These are (relatively) huge numbers of a major player in the war, totally ignored. So yeah, I do see that as a more glaring omission than excluding French and Italian planes. If I must choose between all of the above.

Edited by oc2209
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BornToBattle

Yeah, this old horse has been beaten to death. Jason has stated it ain’t gonna happen and despite even trying to get info data in Japan on aircraft it’s a no-go. I’m guessing Japan destroyed technical documents on aircraft as the war was coming to an end for the Axis powers? Who knows. I’d also snatch up the first four engine bomber they would produce, but with the current game engine that ain’t gonna happen either.
 

Of course I’d love to see this series have a change of direction and head to the Pacific and while there is supposedly enough tech data to reproduce the Zero for Great Battles but putting all that time and effort into one aircraft that has no other role than perhaps a hypothetical quick mission doesn’t make sense. 

 

I personally think a trip to Battle of Britain would be the most logical next choice with the newer game engine and graphics we now have along with the aircraft sets and the Channel map being released for Normandy. I’ve tried Cliffs of Dover but damn - the newer game engine and graphics has me spoiled, especially in VR.

 

 

Edited by BornToBattle
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=VARP=Ribbon
55 minutes ago, BornToBattle said:

Yeah, this old horse has been beaten to death. Jason has stated it ain’t gonna happen and despite even trying to get info data in Japan on aircraft it’s a no-go. I’m guessing Japan destroyed technical documents on aircraft as the war was coming to an end for the Axis powers? Who knows. I’d also snatch up the first four engine bomber they would produce, but with the current game engine that ain’t gonna happen either.
 

Of course I’d love to see this series have a change of direction and head to the Pacific and while there is supposedly enough tech data to reproduce the Zero for Great Battles but putting all that time and effort into one aircraft that has no other role than perhaps a hypothetical quick mission doesn’t make sense. 

 

I personally think a trip to Battle of Britain would be the most logical next choice with the newer game engine and graphics we now have along with the aircraft sets and the Channel map being released for Normandy. I’ve tried Cliffs of Dover but damn - the newer game engine and graphics has me spoiled, especially in VR.

 

 

I don't think they would officialy announce PTO back in 2017 if it's impossible and engine can't handle it on lvl they planned.

 I believe just in USA alone you can find data to develop Midway, there is more than enough data on Zero while Kate (torpedo bomber) being under full restauration in Hawaii museum of war (they said it will be basically flyable), Val (dive bomber) also being under restauration in Chino, California.

 

Meaning there is detailed data (blueprints and manuals) and for il2 you don't need that lvl of data details since it doesn't model clickpit and every aircraft system.

 

For later expansions and gorund based planeset it's also possible to collect data (Oscar and some others) since there are surviving examples in USA/Japan/Aus museums and world wide.

 

With these 3 IJN planes and Dauntless, Wildcat and Devastator Midway is basically done when it comes to il2 combat scope.

About naval assets (ships) since il2 isn't ship simulator i think nobody would care if they go with little details and guesstimation apporoach.

Edited by =VARP=Ribbon
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enceladus
1 hour ago, =VARP=Ribbon said:

With these 3 IJN planes and Dauntless, Wildcat and Devastator Midway is basically done when it comes to il2 combat scope.

About naval assets (ships) since il2 isn't ship simulator i think nobody would care if they go with little details and guesstimation apporoach.

Definitely. I also hope that they can make the B-26 flyable for Midway as well 😁

 

And yes, considering the amount of ships that will have to be made (if they decide to do the Coral Sea along with Midway) then having 7 planes is plenty. I don't really care about all the technical details of ships, so as you said if some guess work is required and they also omit elevators and hangar decks on the carriers that doesn't really bother me. Hey, as long as they include some cruisers from both sides and the Kongo class Battleship along with the rest of the ships then 1C instantly has my $$

Lastly, for something like the Kongo class BB, just make one of the 4 in that class and it's automatically the Kongo, Hiei, Haruna, and Kirishima.

 

2 hours ago, BornToBattle said:

I personally think a trip to Battle of Britain would be the most logical next choice with the newer game engine and graphics we now have along with the aircraft sets and the Channel map being released for Normandy.

No, the next place the devs will go if not Pacific will be a late war Eastern Front.

But if you have BoN, BoS, Spitfire Mk.Vb, Hurricane Mk.II, and BoM then you can do the Battle of Britain with 1941-42 planes in IL-2 GBs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feathered_IV
6 hours ago, Enceladus said:

No, the next place the devs will go if not Pacific will be a late war Eastern Front.


Hmm.  I’m not sure I would be too excited by that.  I wonder what the planeset would look like?  The German aircraft in particular are pretty well represented already.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...