Jump to content


US Tree Extension - Douglass and Bell Lines - now with pictures!

Douglas Martin Curtis tree line dive bomber GA Invader Bell Airacobra

  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

Raindrops #1 Posted 04 February 2014 - 04:28 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 92 battles
  • 782
  • [EDF] EDF
  • Member since:
    02-05-2012

A couple years ago, while playing with all the twin-engine planes I could find for potential American heavies, (Information now relegated to a portion of the forums that no longer exists.) I started considering what companies could create proper lines. I began fiddling with the concept of a McDonnell-Douglas line, and that eventually spiraled out of control into what you see before you.

 

     Primarily, this was to be a discussion of Douglas dive- and medium-bombers as two lines of GA aircraft, however, as updates have come and gone this project has increased in scope, and more companies and planes will be added as the project continues.

 

How these planes would appear in WoWP:

 

Stats aside, organizing these planes int tiers for WoWP is when it gets interesting.  Though only a small slice of US aircraft development, there are a lot of planes in this listing, with a wide array of speeds, roles, variants, and armaments, all of which need to be factored into choosing a tier.  There are quite a few instances where there are multiple planes capable of filling the same bracket - resulting in the need for some to be put in unfortunate slots, premium'ed, or excluded altogether.  Hashing out what goes where is what the rest of this thread is dedicated to.

Current tiering proposal.

Green stands for Light Fighters, blue for Heavy, yellow for Multi-role, and red for Ground Attack.

 

 

While most of the discussion will be on appropriate tiers, stats are much easier to find:

 

THIS SEGMENT DUE FOR FUTURE EXPANSION

 

LF Line: Bell Cobras

YP-37, Model 3, P-39 Airacobra, P-63 King Cobra and P-52 Airacomet, XP-83, P-80 Shooting Star, X-5 (Model 60)

 

Spoiler

 

GA Line: Douglas Dive Bombers

XA-2, TBD Devastator, SBD Dauntless, TBF Avenger, XSB2D-1, XTB2D Skypirate, AD Skyraider, A2D Skyshark, A4 Skyhawk

 

Spoiler

 

GA Line: Douglas Twin Engine Attackers

A-12 Shrike, A-18 Shrike II, DB7, A-20 Havoc, A-26 Invader, A-26(75mm), B-42 Mixmaster, B-43 Jetmaster, XB-51

 

Spoiler

 

GA Line: 75mm Demi-Line

B-25H, NA-98X "Super Strafer," XA-38 Grizzly

Spoiler

 

THIS SEGMENT DUE FOR FUTURE EXPANSION


Edited by Raindrops, 05 March 2015 - 02:03 PM.

I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.


Raindrops #2 Posted 04 February 2014 - 04:31 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 92 battles
  • 782
  • [EDF] EDF
  • Member since:
    02-05-2012

That's it for the moment. This tree is under continuous construction, and changes will occur as the game evolves. Check for updates, and don't forget to leave comments - if you find any odd or important details considering prototypes/planes/ordinance/etc., don't forget to leave it here!

 

Future update plans:

Merge B-25H with NA-98X

Rebuild DBs in light of Wirraway

Replace P-80 in Bell line

Add statblocks for premiums

Steal PressureLine's Republic line to expand tree

Add Grumman line to expand tree

 

Various sources:

National USAF Museum Factsheets

Steve Ginter's Airforce Legends and Naval Fighters series.

Putnam, Bell Aircraft Since 1935

E.R.Johnson, American Attack Aircraft Since 1926

Encyclopedia of Air Force Aircraft and Missile Systems, Volume 1; 2

Rene J. Francillon, McDonnell Douglas Aircraft since 1920


Edited by Raindrops, 12 May 2015 - 05:09 AM.

I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.


Demon93IT #3 Posted 04 February 2014 - 11:20 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 348
  • Member since:
    03-06-2012

I've made one for Douglas(considering only the twin engined GAA) here. I haven't considered both the F3D and the F4D because they are fighters rather than ground attackers(by the way the F4D was able to achieve supersonic speeds so i don't think it's suited for the game). In my branch i divided both the A-20 and the A-26 in two(the older models at the lower tier, the more modern ones at the higher) to consider the development of these two models which were quite successful.

 

As the other Douglas branch is concerned the problem is the A-1 Skyraider. It's slow(slower than the Skypirate) and, although the payload is similar(8000 lbs against 8400 lbs) the A-1 would suffer more due to the drag caused by the bombs(the Skypirate hasn't this issue thanks to the bomb bay).

 

As McDonnel is concerned the problem is that there isn't something linking these planes due to the fact that they had different roles in mind. Quite difficult to link the XP-67 and the Phantom as they were two different concepts(and visually the XP-67 is cooler i must admit).

 

Sadly i don't have any ideas on how to link the XP-67 but, as the rest is concerned, i have an idea. This is my proposal:

VII)FH-1

VIII)F2H-1

IX)F2H-4

X)F2H-5(swept wing version with afterburners and tail section of the XP-88).

 

In any case considering them as heavy fighters isn't correct. The Navy have had twin engined fighters from the '50s on except few exceptions. The Navy chose twin engined fighter for safety measures(for a Navy pilot it's good to know that with an engine down he can still go back home flying rather than ditching and wait to get rescued). Of course this is just a proposal :)


Edited by Demon93IT, 04 February 2014 - 11:24 AM.


Nihtwaco #4 Posted 04 February 2014 - 11:43 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 453 battles
  • 649
  • [DSA] DSA
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012


I think about 2/3 of these may make into the game if it keeps going long enough. First we need a whole bunch more qualified Computer pilots to join us in our fun.

 

The A-20 and the A-26 are more fragile than the IL series. A-20 Mostly Day attack roles, A-26 served into early years in Nam Mostly Night Intruder Missions. Beaufighter is closest analog in game at present. Ship busting with Para Demo bombs would be a hoot. The were used for Bridge busting in Korea. 1,000 lbs. bomb with a medium Cargo chute rig with 11 sec delay fuze if I remember right triggered by chute opening and snagging the Bridge double chance of function. Bomb would do two loops wrapping up around the Bridge then Bang.

 

Keep up the research as that is what feeds the Developer idea mill.



Raindrops #5 Posted 04 February 2014 - 02:31 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 92 battles
  • 782
  • [EDF] EDF
  • Member since:
    02-05-2012

Though less sturdy than the ILs, the A-20/A-26 are faster, and can carry far more ordinance.  They lack the cannons, (for the most part) but are capable of wiping out a base very  quickly, but are more likely to be shot down while doing so, resulting in a high risk/high reward GA.

View PostDemon93IT, on 04 February 2014 - 11:20 AM, said:

I've made one for Douglas(considering only the twin engined GAA) here. I haven't considered both the F3D and the F4D because they are fighters rather than ground attackers(by the way the F4D was able to achieve supersonic speeds so i don't think it's suited for the game). In my branch i divided both the A-20 and the A-26 in two(the older models at the lower tier, the more modern ones at the higher) to consider the development of these two models which were quite successful.

 

As the other Douglas branch is concerned the problem is the A-1 Skyraider. It's slow(slower than the Skypirate) and, although the payload is similar(8000 lbs against 8400 lbs) the A-1 would suffer more due to the drag caused by the bombs(the Skypirate hasn't this issue thanks to the bomb bay).

 

As McDonnel is concerned the problem is that there isn't something linking these planes due to the fact that they had different roles in mind. Quite difficult to link the XP-67 and the Phantom as they were two different concepts(and visually the XP-67 is cooler i must admit).

 

Sadly i don't have any ideas on how to link the XP-67 but, as the rest is concerned, i have an idea. This is my proposal:

VII)FH-1

VIII)F2H-1

IX)F2H-4

X)F2H-5(swept wing version with afterburners and tail section of the XP-88).

 

In any case considering them as heavy fighters isn't correct. The Navy have had twin engined fighters from the '50s on except few exceptions. The Navy chose twin engined fighter for safety measures(for a Navy pilot it's good to know that with an engine down he can still go back home flying rather than ditching and wait to get rescued). Of course this is just a proposal :)

The Skyray was originally used primarily because the Skynight is under-powered for a tier ten slot. Its speed is between the IL-40 and -40P, but it has no turret, less durability, and and similar armament to the current F7D.  Rather than look for another company, I simply shifted the F4D from the single-engine DB line. I will, however, agree that the Skyray is too strong - while below the 1200kmh mach number, it is faster than the Javelin, currently  the fastest in-game plane.  One option is to label it by its prototype designation and give it the weaker J40 engine it was originally planned to mount. The over 6000hp drop would definitely check the Skyrays' speed. The other option is still to drop it entirely and use something else - maybe the Canberra or XB-51, for the sake of dropping as many bombs as possible.

 

The Destroyer/Skyraider/Skypirate is another issue I seem to have not mentioned before either... Basically, when first setting up the lines, I placed the Skyraider on the top because it was the later one in service, and would likely have the most to offer module-wise. However, not only has the Skyraider turned out to be the slowest, but it also got slower through its service era.  While it will probably stay above the Destroyer due to service era and armament, the prototype Skypirate is due to take its place at tier eight. It's just a switch I had not gotten around to as of yet.

 

With the phantoms, the requirement for heavy fighters is twin engines - as stated at the top, this originally came from HF discussion, so that's the Idea I was running with. No they're not truly HFs, save the VooDoo and Moonbat due to their strong armament, but they work in a pinch if given long boost and tiered with decent speed.  They could be reclassified as light fighters and go with the Model 40/F2H-5 as a ten, but I'd have to pick something up from another company to support it and find a new home for the Voodoo and Bat as well.

It's a reasonable change to make, but will require more effort to reorganize, so it'll be a bt before I get there. (I've already gone from two lines to four though, what's a few more in the mix, right?)

 

 

Also, copying over your other Douglas list so I can comment on it here too.

View PostDemon93IT, on 02 February 2014 - 10:30 PM, said:

In these days i've prepared a branch for Douglas considering only its twin engined attack aircraft(so i haven't considered planes such as the SBD, the A-1, the A-4 yet). This is how is looking

 

I)Model 7A

III)//(see note below)

IV)Model 7B

V)A-20C

VI)A-20G/H

VII)A-26

VIII)A-26F/Z A-26K(premium)

IX)XA-42(the attacker version of the XB-42)

X)A-43(the attacker version of the XB-43)

First off, the 7A and B really should be combined, for the sake of keeping module numbers up.  If split, each only has one researchable module of a gun nose swap. This line doesn't go all the way to the bottom, but that's fine so long as it has something to come off of. In my case, I'm drawing from the dive bombers. It has the potential to be a stand-alone with the Curtis Shrike or Stearman XA-21 though. Starting the DBs with the O-46, and going XA-2, XA-21, Model 7B is a possibility.

 

Secondly, the Jetmaster, while fast, is around 140kmh slower than the IL-40. Such a slow craft can not possibly survive at tier ten, especially when it relies upon ordinance, and getting it to the target  quickly. By putting the A-20 and A-26 in the same line, you ran into a problem I expressed above, and just ran out of space.

Edited by Raindrops, 04 February 2014 - 02:44 PM.

I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.


Demon93IT #6 Posted 04 February 2014 - 06:52 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 348
  • Member since:
    03-06-2012

View PostRaindrops, on 04 February 2014 - 02:31 PM, said:

Though less sturdy than the ILs, the A-20/A-26 are faster, and can carry far more ordinance.  They lack the cannons, (for the most part) but are capable of wiping out a base very  quickly, but are more likely to be shot down while doing so, resulting in a high risk/high reward GA.

The Skyray was originally used primarily because the Skynight is under-powered for a tier ten slot. Its speed is between the IL-40 and -40P, but it has no turret, less durability, and and similar armament to the current F7D.  Rather than look for another company, I simply shifted the F4D from the single-engine DB line. I will, however, agree that the Skyray is too strong - while below the 1200kmh mach number, it is faster than the Javelin, currently  the fastest in-game plane.  One option is to label it by its prototype designation and give it the weaker J40 engine it was originally planned to mount. The over 6000hp drop would definitely check the Skyrays' speed. The other option is still to drop it entirely and use something else - maybe the Canberra or XB-51, for the sake of dropping as many bombs as possible.

 

The Destroyer/Skyraider/Skypirate is another issue I seem to have not mentioned before either... Basically, when first setting up the lines, I placed the Skyraider on the top because it was the later one in service, and would likely have the most to offer module-wise. However, not only has the Skyraider turned out to be the slowest, but it also got slower through its service era.  While it will probably stay above the Destroyer due to service era and armament, the prototype Skypirate is due to take its place at tier eight. It's just a switch I had not gotten around to as of yet.

 

With the phantoms, the requirement for heavy fighters is twin engines - as stated at the top, this originally came from HF discussion, so that's the Idea I was running with. No they're not truly HFs, save the VooDoo and Moonbat due to their strong armament, but they work in a pinch if given long boost and tiered with decent speed.  They could be reclassified as light fighters and go with the Model 40/F2H-5 as a ten, but I'd have to pick something up from another company to support it and find a new home for the Voodoo and Bat as well.

It's a reasonable change to make, but will require more effort to reorganize, so it'll be a bt before I get there. (I've already gone from two lines to four though, what's a few more in the mix, right?)

 

 

Also, copying over your other Douglas list so I can comment on it here too.

First off, the 7A and B really should be combined, for the sake of keeping module numbers up.  If split, each only has one researchable module of a gun nose swap. This line doesn't go all the way to the bottom, but that's fine so long as it has something to come off of. In my case, I'm drawing from the dive bombers. It has the potential to be a stand-alone with the Curtis Shrike or Stearman XA-21 though. Starting the DBs with the O-46, and going XA-2, XA-21, Model 7B is a possibility.

 

Secondly, the Jetmaster, while fast, is around 140kmh slower than the IL-40. Such a slow craft can not possibly survive at tier ten, especially when it relies upon ordinance, and getting it to the target  quickly. By putting the A-20 and A-26 in the same line, you ran into a problem I expressed above, and just ran out of space.

The XB-51 seems fine as tier X but the problem is that it carries "only" 2000 lbs while the XB-43 has four times the payload. Sure the Jetmaster is slow but it could carry enough bombs to both destroy GTs and defend itself(using also the turret which the XB-51 hasn't). Moreover having a big difference between the fighter and the bomber is not a bad thing(see B-17 vs Me 163). Personally i find it suited for tier X although slow but, due to the lack of comparisons(only the IL40P) it's difficult to judge.

 

As the A-1 is concerned the problem is speed wise is a tier V, armament wise it isn't and its combat record clearly says that it could be a threat even against jets. Probably it's the most complex plane to balance and the fact that it remained on service for quite some time without a replacement doesn't help.

 

Yeah you're right, could be problematic dividing the Phantom and the Banshee from the rest. The problem is that McDonnel started(or rather said) restarted in 1938 and there aren't many planes suitable. I don't think there's something before the Model I, maybe i'm wrong.

 

Speaking about the model 7A and 7B i divided them because the 7A was considered obsolete even before building it(i don't know too well all the specifics but doesn't seem a tier IV to me). Having the XA-2 and the XA-21 at tier II and III though should work out.

 

In any case i wonder how the A-20 and the A-26 would be considered. In some ways they are ground attackers but they could act as heavy fighters. I guess we have to find out

 

 



Raindrops #7 Posted 04 February 2014 - 09:03 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 92 battles
  • 782
  • [EDF] EDF
  • Member since:
    02-05-2012

Do keep in mind that the only planes mounting bombs at tier ten are the F7D, with 4x500lbs, and the IL-40P at around 1100lbs. It's the combination of speed and armament that makes the IL-40s effective, and the XB-51 can certainly counter that with and octet of 20s, and brings its own rockets to the field as well, in addition to a 2000lb bombload.

The Canberra, well, do you really need 7300lbs of bombs? (The fact that it's a licence-built British design is another matter entirely.)

Another thing to consider is that with the XB-43's speed, it will be BnZ'd by everything at tier ten. Even IL-40s - and two 12.7s in a turret will do very little at that tier. Sure, it has the bombs, but it would never survive long enough to use them all.

As far as the F4D goes in that slot, using the J40 would make it a slower F7D with extra bombs and rockets.

 

The ain thing to do with the A-1 is remember that it's going into a GA line - if you look at the speeds of the ILs, they stagnate after tier four, with the BSh2, IL-2, IL-2 (t), and IL-8 all around the same 35-kmh zone above the 400 mark. Compared to that, the A-1 is fast enough to be a tier eight, pulling up close to the IL-20.  It also is lighter, smaller, and would do better flying defensively should it come under attack.  Add in the fact it has 6000lbs of ordinance, and I think it'd do fine. (That's over double the complete ordinance load of the IL-20 or IL-40 by the way.)

No, it won't keep up with a fighter.  Compared to the LA line instead of ILs, it trails behind the LaGG.   But it will get to a base and completely level it. The big drawback I see with the A-1 is not speed, but the lack of the IL's cannons. Without the 40 or 57mm gun, it does have limited damage potential once the bombs are gone.

 

Splitting the Phantom/Banshee would not be problematic for them, as they could easily be made to stand alone.  It's the others that would suffer.  It's a question of giving the Banshee a place of honor, or trimming it down to sustain a couple of less-prominent aircraft I personally like.

 

7A was obsolete before it came out, which is why it would be a stock config. The 7B is the better half, with the far better engines.

 

In real life, the A-20 and A-26 were, obviously attack aircraft. Because they have such heay ordinance loads and were indeed designed for GA, I believe they are best suited there.  As some variants show however (Havoc I, P-70) they were capable of performing the HF role if needed.  Despite predicting them to be GAs, I wouldn't be suprised if they turn out to be the best multi-role aircraft in the game, with people stripping the ordinance and dueling with 110s and Mossies. The 75mm A-26 could be terrifying as a ad-hoc HF.


I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.


Demon93IT #8 Posted 04 February 2014 - 09:47 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 348
  • Member since:
    03-06-2012

View PostRaindrops, on 04 February 2014 - 09:03 PM, said:

Do keep in mind that the only planes mounting bombs at tier ten are the F7D, with 4x500lbs, and the IL-40P at around 1100lbs. It's the combination of speed and armament that makes the IL-40s effective, and the XB-51 can certainly counter that with and octet of 20s, and brings its own rockets to the field as well, in addition to a 2000lb bombload.

The Canberra, well, do you really need 7300lbs of bombs? (The fact that it's a licence-built British design is another matter entirely.)

Another thing to consider is that with the XB-43's speed, it will be BnZ'd by everything at tier ten. Even IL-40s - and two 12.7s in a turret will do very little at that tier. Sure, it has the bombs, but it would never survive long enough to use them all.

As far as the F4D goes in that slot, using the J40 would make it a slower F7D with extra bombs and rockets.

 

The ain thing to do with the A-1 is remember that it's going into a GA line - if you look at the speeds of the ILs, they stagnate after tier four, with the BSh2, IL-2, IL-2 (t), and IL-8 all around the same 35-kmh zone above the 400 mark. Compared to that, the A-1 is fast enough to be a tier eight, pulling up close to the IL-20.  It also is lighter, smaller, and would do better flying defensively should it come under attack.  Add in the fact it has 6000lbs of ordinance, and I think it'd do fine. (That's over double the complete ordinance load of the IL-20 or IL-40 by the way.)

No, it won't keep up with a fighter.  Compared to the LA line instead of ILs, it trails behind the LaGG.   But it will get to a base and completely level it. The big drawback I see with the A-1 is not speed, but the lack of the IL's cannons. Without the 40 or 57mm gun, it does have limited damage potential once the bombs are gone.

 

Splitting the Phantom/Banshee would not be problematic for them, as they could easily be made to stand alone.  It's the others that would suffer.  It's a question of giving the Banshee a place of honor, or trimming it down to sustain a couple of less-prominent aircraft I personally like.

 

7A was obsolete before it came out, which is why it would be a stock config. The 7B is the better half, with the far better engines.

 

In real life, the A-20 and A-26 were, obviously attack aircraft. Because they have such heay ordinance loads and were indeed designed for GA, I believe they are best suited there.  As some variants show however (Havoc I, P-70) they were capable of performing the HF role if needed.  Despite predicting them to be GAs, I wouldn't be suprised if they turn out to be the best multi-role aircraft in the game, with people stripping the ordinance and dueling with 110s and Mossies. The 75mm A-26 could be terrifying as a ad-hoc HF.


True, then it's more suited the XB-51. Then it should be like this:

IV)Model 7A(stock), model 7B(elite)

V)A-20C(stock), A-20G/H(elite)

VI)A-26C(stock), A-26D(elite)

VII)A-26F(stock), A-26Z(elite)

VIII)XA-42(stock), XB-42A(elite)

IX)XB-43

X)XB-51

 

As the A-1 is concerned true, should be superior to the ILs speed wise while on armament is inferior due to the lack of heavy cannons. It could become a sort of fighter when the payload is gone(historically it proved to be a nasty opponent), as it happens for the IL-10 now.

 

Well the problem is that the Bat is a sort of stand alone. There's nothing before and, sadly, nothing came after it. Due to this i'm thinking if it could be possible to make it premium. Sure it won't be normal but it could be a good seller(and i think that WG would like it). In any case if classified as HF the Phantom would have a problem: sure it would be the fastest at tier VII but, ironically for a HF, it would have the worst armament(for this reason i see it fit as light fighter rather than heavy fighter). If considered light figher it should be placed at tier VIII with the F2H at IX and the F2H-5 at X. Another possible tier X is the F3H, slightly faster than the Javelin but marginal(12 km/h more)



Raindrops #9 Posted 09 February 2014 - 11:47 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 92 battles
  • 782
  • [EDF] EDF
  • Member since:
    02-05-2012

Once again, I still fear for the speed of the Jetmaster, even at tier nine. That's why I fit the Skynight in originally - it was a twin-engine jet that fit the speed gap after the XB-40s. The XBs provide a ridiculous bombload, which is standard throughout the GA lines I have here, but don't have the staying power to compete at the very top. That's also why I reasoned the A-26 would have to be a side-grade from the A-20 (Like the IL-10) simply to allow space once the XBs were dropped.

XB-51 is far more than enough to cap off a line though. No bunker is safe.

 

Most of the DB line can act as impromptu fighters, allowing them to at least hold their own in air-to-air engagements. The A-1 is no different here.

 

I just split the OP, and added stats/modules for the SBD Dauntless and TBD Devastator.

 

I'll be looking at giving the Phantoms thier own line, so I'll be officially dissolving the combined idea. The XP-67 will have to float until I can find a better implementation for it. (A hodge-podge HF line likely.) Any idea as to what I should use for footing the FH line though?


I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.


Demon93IT #10 Posted 10 February 2014 - 12:16 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 348
  • Member since:
    03-06-2012

View PostRaindrops, on 09 February 2014 - 11:47 PM, said:

Once again, I still fear for the speed of the Jetmaster, even at tier nine. That's why I fit the Skynight in originally - it was a twin-engine jet that fit the speed gap after the XB-40s. The XBs provide a ridiculous bombload, which is standard throughout the GA lines I have here, but don't have the staying power to compete at the very top. That's also why I reasoned the A-26 would have to be a side-grade from the A-20 (Like the IL-10) simply to allow space once the XBs were dropped.

XB-51 is far more than enough to cap off a line though. No bunker is safe.

 

Most of the DB line can act as impromptu fighters, allowing them to at least hold their own in air-to-air engagements. The A-1 is no different here.

 

I just split the OP, and added stats/modules for the SBD Dauntless and TBD Devastator.

 

I'll be looking at giving the Phantoms thier own line, so I'll be officially dissolving the combined idea. The XP-67 will have to float until I can find a better implementation for it. (A hodge-podge HF line likely.) Any idea as to what I should use for footing the FH line though?


Well at tier IX the difference with the IL-40 is marginal. The IL-40 fully upgraded has as maximum speed at optimum altitude 825 km/h with external armament and 920 km/h without. The XB-43 had as maximum speed 860 km/h and, thanks to the internal bomb bay, the payload won't increase drag so the speed lost isn't too much(especially counting the fact that it won't carry 8000 lbs of bombs most probably).

 

As the McDonnels are concerned the problem is that they became important after the war so i don't really know how you should link the FH line. A possibility is to use the old carrier based branch simply because the FH branch is composed by carrier based jets. It's not so correct but i don't see any other plausible solutions



Raindrops #11 Posted 10 February 2014 - 04:37 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 92 battles
  • 782
  • [EDF] EDF
  • Member since:
    02-05-2012

It is possible to connect to the carrier line, but I'll have to see if I can find a company that died out in WWII that would fit the bill. It's something I'll have to look into.

 

Also, the XB-43 is still ~70kmh slower than the IL-40, which is already the slowest tier IX. It would be able to outpace the J7W2 by two whole kmh, which makes it the second-slowest in tier. It still makes me nervous, but it could possibly work. The Skynight would then be out of the running though. The ~200kmh speed jump between the XB-43 and XB-51 is also a bit of a change to look at. (Though the IL-20/IL-40 split is closer to 300, so that's negligible.)

I'll have to fiddle with the modules to see what goes where in the Havoc and Invader, but you've slowly been converting me here... So yeah, Model 7B > A-20 > A-26 > A-26F> XA-42 > XB-43 > XB-51. (Also of note, at tier five, the A-20 would actually be one of the faster planes in-tier.)

 

Or maybe... Use the O-46 to foot the DBs, then make a full line ground-up from the XA-2 > Stearman XA-21 > A-20, etc... But then the Stearman would be the fastest plane in its tier at III...


Edited by Raindrops, 10 February 2014 - 05:15 AM.

I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.


Demon93IT #12 Posted 10 February 2014 - 09:14 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 348
  • Member since:
    03-06-2012

View PostRaindrops, on 10 February 2014 - 04:37 AM, said:

It is possible to connect to the carrier line, but I'll have to see if I can find a company that died out in WWII that would fit the bill. It's something I'll have to look into.

 

Also, the XB-43 is still ~70kmh slower than the IL-40, which is already the slowest tier IX. It would be able to outpace the J7W2 by two whole kmh, which makes it the second-slowest in tier. It still makes me nervous, but it could possibly work. The Skynight would then be out of the running though. The ~200kmh speed jump between the XB-43 and XB-51 is also a bit of a change to look at. (Though the IL-20/IL-40 split is closer to 300, so that's negligible.)

I'll have to fiddle with the modules to see what goes where in the Havoc and Invader, but you've slowly been converting me here... So yeah, Model 7B > A-20 > A-26 > A-26F> XA-42 > XB-43 > XB-51. (Also of note, at tier five, the A-20 would actually be one of the faster planes in-tier.)

 

Or maybe... Use the O-46 to foot the DBs, then make a full line ground-up from the XA-2 > Stearman XA-21 > A-20, etc... But then the Stearman would be the fastest plane in its tier at III...


Well the speed is problematic but not so much for the A-20, the 110B at top configuration can go at 550 km/h(6 km/h less than the A-20, marginal). As the XA-21 is concerned it's speed(414 km/h) is marginally better than the one of the FW 57 top configuration(400 km/h).

 

In both cases i supposed that the A-20 and the XA-21 don't have any payload whatsoever(which could happen, they can act as heavies). Counting also the payload their maximum speed would be reduced so they would be around the average maximum speed.

 

As the low tiers are concerned yeah we could link this branch to the XA-2. The problem is that there's a big jump between the XA-2 and the XA-21, mainly because the XA-2 is a single engine biplane and the XA-21 is a twin engine monoplane. In any case the XA-2 would start both lines which is nice :)



Raindrops #13 Posted 10 February 2014 - 02:44 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 92 battles
  • 782
  • [EDF] EDF
  • Member since:
    02-05-2012

It is a big leap in tech - but the XA-2 is a better start for the heavier-armed attack aircraft line than the O-46, and the XA-21 fits due to size and bombing ability. Another option is the Curtiss Shrike, a single-engine monoplane with a much lower speed, around 300kmh. It has bombing ability and a quartet of .30s like the XA-21.

The big thing I see with the XA-21 is that it just has too much bomb capacity. The FW has one of the best bombloads ever at around 1300lbs, but the XA-21 has a 2700lb capacity on top of being a faster bird. The only thing that really holds it back is its weak armament of four 7.62 wing guns.


I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.


Demon93IT #14 Posted 10 February 2014 - 02:58 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 348
  • Member since:
    03-06-2012

View PostRaindrops, on 10 February 2014 - 02:44 PM, said:

It is a big leap in tech - but the XA-2 is a better start for the heavier-armed attack aircraft line than the O-46, and the XA-21 fits due to size and bombing ability. Another option is the Curtiss Shrike, a single-engine monoplane with a much lower speed, around 300kmh. It has bombing ability and a quartet of .30s like the XA-21.

The big thing I see with the XA-21 is that it just has too much bomb capacity. The FW has one of the best bombloads ever at around 1300lbs, but the XA-21 has a 2700lb capacity on top of being a faster bird. The only thing that really holds it back is its weak armament of four 7.62 wing guns.

Personally i find the XA-2 fine for tier II, it's a shame there isn't anything twin engined to be implemented at tier II but as it is these branches look nice.

 

As the XA-21 is concerned well the payload compensates the lack in firepower in some extent. Moreover all the branch has a low firepower(in comparison to the IL branch) but a larger payload. I think that they would be nice to play, especially after dropping the bombs(they would act as HF more or less)



Raindrops #15 Posted 10 February 2014 - 04:02 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 92 battles
  • 782
  • [EDF] EDF
  • Member since:
    02-05-2012
The A-26 and XB-21 are far from lacking firepower - the former having 75/37mm setups to match anything an IL can carry, and the latter being an absolute hailstorm. The rest of the line, while not lacking firepower in damage potential, lacks adequate range due to large groupings of .50s. Firepower stats will always be high, but they won't be able to engage targets in such long passes as ILs do.

I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.


Demon93IT #16 Posted 10 February 2014 - 04:06 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 348
  • Member since:
    03-06-2012

View PostRaindrops, on 10 February 2014 - 04:02 PM, said:

The A-26 and XB-21 are far from lacking firepower - the former having 75/37mm setups to match anything an IL can carry, and the latter being an absolute hailstorm. The rest of the line, while not lacking firepower in damage potential, lacks adequate range due to large groupings of .50s. Firepower stats will always be high, but they won't be able to engage targets in such long passes as ILs do.


I forgot about those two yeah. Un until the high tiers though they mounted machine guns only which is less effective than cannons.

 

By the way i'm not so sure about the 75 mm, especially since the 50 mm got removed from the German tech tree.



Raindrops #17 Posted 11 February 2014 - 01:51 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 92 battles
  • 782
  • [EDF] EDF
  • Member since:
    02-05-2012

There is a whole slew of 75mm planes in the US arsenal - and even in German, Russian, and Japanese designs as well. The B-25G, XA-38, and A-26 to name a few. However despite precedent, do such derps have place in WoWP? They would be extremely heavy, slow-firing, and not the fastest shell speed ever either, meaning they would be hard to aim. However, a 75mm shell would be a guaranteed one-hit-kill, regardless of tier. It's a question of is rewarding a player who can use it worth the risk of rage from players who are hit by it?

Personally, as much as I like the sound of 75mm guns on planes, it would be bad for WoWP to introduce them.

 

The A-26 itsself is perfectly capable of performing without it - the 37mms in the nose backed up by the wing guns provide plenty of power - but it could be a proving ground for the 75mm. If you introduce it to the test server/alpha testers first, it's an easy enough asset to remove the 75 and keep the plane, rather than test, say, the XA-38 and give it an unhistorical neutering to keep it in.


I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.


DracoArgentum #18 Posted 11 February 2014 - 09:00 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 0 battles
  • 803
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-18-2011

View PostDemon93IT, on 10 February 2014 - 04:06 PM, said:


I forgot about those two yeah. Un until the high tiers though they mounted machine guns only which is less effective than cannons.

 

By the way i'm not so sure about the 75 mm, especially since the 50 mm got removed from the German tech tree.

 

The 50mm was taken from the German fighters. The USSR GA still have 57mm cannon available. So GA can have them still.

 

Also Overlord said WG is redoing the damage mechanics so they can give the fighters their huge cannons back. Sauce



Demon93IT #19 Posted 11 February 2014 - 10:53 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 348
  • Member since:
    03-06-2012

View PostDracoArgentum, on 11 February 2014 - 09:00 AM, said:

 

The 50mm was taken from the German fighters. The USSR GA still have 57mm cannon available. So GA can have them still.

 

Also Overlord said WG is redoing the damage mechanics so they can give the fighters their huge cannons back. Sauce


That's nice :). Not that i liked the 50 mm on the Germans(the 2x30 mm are enough) but it's nice to have the option.

 

As the 75 mm is concerned there are some problems

1)The velocity is lower than the 57 mm one(619 m/s versus 700 m/s)

2)The rate of fire is much lower. The 57 mm can fire 230 rounds per minute, the 75 mm rate of fire should be similar to the Sherman one(the gun is virtually the same)

 

Personally i'm not so sure about such cannons, especially because it took quite some time before seeing them again in action(on AC 130s over Vietnam)

 

 



Raindrops #20 Posted 11 February 2014 - 02:13 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 92 battles
  • 782
  • [EDF] EDF
  • Member since:
    02-05-2012

There were six or so (B-25G/H, XTB2F-1, XA-38, XA-42, XP-71, and XP-58.) contemporary projects in the US with the 75mm either mounted or as a possible mounting. It was pretty popular in the attack role for its time, but people realized pretty quick that a 20mm will kill just as surely firing quicker and with higher velocity.

 

A change to the damage system may help alleviate the high-caliber problem, but considering how people like to single out the C6 as OP, I still doubt it'd be wise to give them too much ammunition.

 

Also, I'm not sure if the plane-mounted M3 M4 had an automatic/assisted loader or not. I'll have to check. I ran across the manual for the gun mount once, but don't think I bookmarked it. Found it.

Shell was about 600m/s, and weighs 893 pounds. There is no loading assistance mechanism, so fire rate is up to the loader.

 

Additional:

Spoiler

Shell is slow by aircraft standards, but the effective range is quite long, with the last bit putting it at 4.5 kilometers. Fire rate was about once every five seconds, or 12rpm.


Edited by Raindrops, 11 February 2014 - 02:32 PM.

I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.






Also tagged with Douglas, Martin, Curtis, tree, line, dive bomber, GA, Invader, Bell, Airacobra

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users