Jump to content


'Carrier based fighter' tree name


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
8 replies to this topic

Jinxed_Katajainen #1 Posted 02 July 2013 - 08:44 PM

    Feedback Airedale

  • Alpha tester
  • 47 battles
  • 2,444
  • Member since:
    01-28-2012
Minor thing, but it's been bothering me since the start.

The carrier-based fighter tree should be renamed naval fighter tree.

Reason being the J4M and the J7W series, two planes that are currently in the Japanese Carrier based fighters tree were not designed to operate off carriers.

The 'J' designation in the name denotes it is a land based interceptor operated by the IJN, while all carrier fighters had the 'A' designation (eg: A5M, A6M, etc).  If the J4M was a carrier fighter, it would get the next 'A' number, or if it was converted, it would be J4M-A, much like the floatplane N1K Kyofu that was converted to the interceptor N1K-J Shiden.

SirW00f #2 Posted 02 July 2013 - 10:30 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 11
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
imo they should fully expand all trees...sorted by carrier/land based classes thensorted by fighter/bomber classes, and so on

boxtosser #3 Posted 03 July 2013 - 12:22 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Alpha Test Veteran
  • 0 battles
  • 906
  • Member since:
    10-19-2011
Why make the distinction anyway?  Carrier planes were often used both from land bases and carriers.  Some land based fighters were modified for carrier use (Seafire, Sea Hurricane, 109T) and carrier fighters did the same jobs as their land based counterparts (escort, interceptor, fighter sweep, fighter bomber, recon, night fighter, etc)


"If it could cook, I'd marry it." - Eugene Valencia (23 kills) on the F6F

The cat in my avatar does the flying, I just feed him.

Istvan #4 Posted 03 July 2013 - 12:41 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 13 battles
  • 103
  • Member since:
    10-26-2011
Perhaps call them fighter/bombers? To call them all Navy wouldn't be 100% accurate. I know the US Marines flew the Corsair and the Hellcat, as well as the Navy.

boxtosser #5 Posted 03 July 2013 - 12:48 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Alpha Test Veteran
  • 0 battles
  • 906
  • Member since:
    10-19-2011

View PostIstvan, on 03 July 2013 - 12:41 AM, said:

Perhaps call them fighter/bombers? To call them all Navy wouldn't be 100% accurate. I know the US Marines flew the Corsair and the Hellcat, as well as the Navy.

Well there were land-based fighter bombers too.  Most fighters could carry at least a couple small bombs.  Just call them all fighters and sort trees by manufacturer (since that's what they wanted to do anyway).  Right now the FJ-1 is a naval plane in the USAAF tree, and Vought and Grumman only built Naval aircraft anyway.


"If it could cook, I'd marry it." - Eugene Valencia (23 kills) on the F6F

The cat in my avatar does the flying, I just feed him.

Jinxed_Katajainen #6 Posted 03 July 2013 - 12:54 AM

    Feedback Airedale

  • Alpha tester
  • 47 battles
  • 2,444
  • Member since:
    01-28-2012

View Postboxtosser, on 03 July 2013 - 12:22 AM, said:

Why make the distinction anyway?  Carrier planes were often used both from land bases and carriers.  Some land based fighters were modified for carrier use (Seafire, Sea Hurricane, 109T) and carrier fighters did the same jobs as their land based counterparts (escort, interceptor, fighter sweep, fighter bomber, recon, night fighter, etc)

That's true for the examples you give and how the US and Britain operated their planes.

But for the IJN the 'J' planes were not used from carriers and never were designed that way.
Like their bomber counterparts, the 'G' series, they're IJN operated land based planes so it's technically incorrect to call them carrier planes.

Like I said, it's a minor thing that applies only to the Japanese tree, but it is incorrect.

Triggerhappypilot #7 Posted 03 July 2013 - 02:07 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 2 battles
  • 68
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostIstvan, on 03 July 2013 - 12:41 AM, said:

Perhaps call them fighter/bombers? To call them all Navy wouldn't be 100% accurate. I know the US Marines flew the Corsair and the Hellcat, as well as the Navy.

The most apropriate name is, as Jinxed said, Naval fighters. The Zero isn't a fighter bomber, so you can't call them that, and not all of the planes took off from a carrier, so the current name is also invalid. The common factor is that all of these fighters were used in the naval aviation division of their countries' respective militaries.

Istvan #8 Posted 03 July 2013 - 02:14 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 13 battles
  • 103
  • Member since:
    10-26-2011

View PostTriggerhappypilot, on 03 July 2013 - 02:07 AM, said:

The most apropriate name is, as Jinxed said, Naval fighters. The Zero isn't a fighter bomber, so you can't call them that, and not all of the planes took off from a carrier, so the current name is also invalid. The common factor is that all of these fighters were used in the naval aviation division of their countries' respective militaries.

For the US tree, at least, calling it Naval fighter wouldn't be accurate either as the Marines had carrier based fighters as well.

Triggerhappypilot #9 Posted 03 July 2013 - 02:43 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 2 battles
  • 68
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostIstvan, on 03 July 2013 - 02:14 AM, said:

For the US tree, at least, calling it Naval fighter wouldn't be accurate either as the Marines had carrier based fighters as well.

The Marines are naval infantry. Naval infantry use naval fighters for support.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users