Jump to content


[spoiler] what the American tech tree could look like

Consolidated Vultee Convair dive bomber United States Republic Seversky Bell Douglas Martin

  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

J311yfish #21 Posted 03 November 2015 - 01:09 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 284 battles
  • 1,080
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

Fighter, Torpedo Bomber, Dive Bomber progression for United States carrier-borne aircraft in World of Warships:

 

Tier Carrier Fighters

Torpedo

Bombers

Dive

Bombers

IV Langley

Curtiss TS-1

Curtiss F6C-1

Douglas DT

Martin T3M

(none)

(none)

V Bogue

Curtiss F6C-1

Boeing F4B (P-12)

Martin T3M

Martin T4M

Martin BM2

Vought SBU

VI Independence

Boeing F4B (P-12)

Grumman F3F

Martin T4M

Douglas TBD

Vought SBU

Curtiss SBC4

VII Ranger

Grumman F3F

Grumman F4F3

Douglas TBD

Consolidated TBY-2

Curtiss SBC4

Vought SB2U

VIII Lexington

Grumman F4F3

Vought F4U (-1/-4)

Consolidated TBY-2

Grumman TBF

Vought SB2U

Douglas SBD2

IX Essex

Vought F4U (-1/-4)

Grumman F8F

Grumman TBF

Douglas AD1

Douglas SBD2

Curtiss SB2C

X Midway

Grumman F8F

McDonnell F2H

Douglas AD1

Douglas A2D

Curtiss SB2C

Douglas XSB2D

 


Edited by J311yfish, 03 November 2015 - 05:51 AM.

Tech tree projects:  JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  //  Italy    France  //  Sweden    Finland (skins)    Poland    China    Brazil    UNITED STATES  //  Roadmap

Map proposals:  Panama Canal    Great Wall of China    Cliffs of Dover  //  Clan:  343 Kokutai  //  Tutorial How to ignore forum posts and signatures


BLUE_BEARD #22 Posted 19 November 2015 - 03:16 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 6 battles
  • 44
  • Member since:
    05-30-2014
All USA Planes on RECALL,  Honda motors misfire, Russian AMMO to COROSIVE, bring to factory, Will swap it all for VOLVO parts at no COST to YOU or GOVERMENT PROG. like SECTION EIGHT, and FOOD STAMPS.

J311yfish #23 Posted 21 November 2015 - 02:37 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 284 battles
  • 1,080
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

Seversky/Republic line and North American P-82B

 


Tech tree projects:  JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  //  Italy    France  //  Sweden    Finland (skins)    Poland    China    Brazil    UNITED STATES  //  Roadmap

Map proposals:  Panama Canal    Great Wall of China    Cliffs of Dover  //  Clan:  343 Kokutai  //  Tutorial How to ignore forum posts and signatures


J311yfish #24 Posted 20 December 2015 - 05:50 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 284 battles
  • 1,080
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

Minor update

-- added Republic line of aircraft

-- speculative pre-P-38 heavy fighters and Bell aircraft here


Tech tree projects:  JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  //  Italy    France  //  Sweden    Finland (skins)    Poland    China    Brazil    UNITED STATES  //  Roadmap

Map proposals:  Panama Canal    Great Wall of China    Cliffs of Dover  //  Clan:  343 Kokutai  //  Tutorial How to ignore forum posts and signatures


J311yfish #25 Posted 04 February 2018 - 05:50 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 284 battles
  • 1,080
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

from Developer Blog Q&A 12/2017 - Part 1:

 

Q: When will bomber branches be added and to what nations?

At the moment, we are working on three bomber branches. Every one of them has unique features and gameplay styles. Very soon you will see three lower to mid-tier medium bombers from Germany, in particular, the Do 17Z and Ju 88. Higher tier machines will appear in later updates. Another branch that we are working on is for Soviet medium bombers codenamed “Pe-2 branch”. And finally (and, probably, most exciting for our NA players) — there are plans to add the largest and heaviest bombers that ever existed - the Flying Fortresses.

 

Martin B-10 (02/1932)

Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress (07/1935)

Consolidated B-24 Liberator (12/1939)

Boeing B-29 Superfortress (09/1942)

Consolidated B-32 Dominator (09/1942)

Convair B-36 Peacemaker (08/1946)

Boeing B-47 Stratojet (12/1947)

Boeing B-50 Superfortress (06/1947)

Boeing B-52 Stratofortress (04/1952)

 

from Developer Blog Q&A 12/2017 - Part 2:

 

Q: Will we ever get an experimental fighter line for the U.S.? With planes like the XP-67, XP-56, and XP-54?

We already have some experimental aircraft in the game, the XP-58 for instance. If the XP-67, XP-56 or XP-54 make their appearance at some point, they will be Premium machines though, not researchable ones.

 

Vultee XP-54 "Swoose Goose" (01/1943)

Northrop XP-56 "Black Bullet" (09/1943)

McDonnell XP-67 "Moonbat" (01/1944)

 


Edited by J311yfish, 05 February 2018 - 12:12 PM.

Tech tree projects:  JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  //  Italy    France  //  Sweden    Finland (skins)    Poland    China    Brazil    UNITED STATES  //  Roadmap

Map proposals:  Panama Canal    Great Wall of China    Cliffs of Dover  //  Clan:  343 Kokutai  //  Tutorial How to ignore forum posts and signatures


FIight #26 Posted 05 February 2018 - 05:27 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 2000 battles
  • 608
  • [HVAR] HVAR
  • Member since:
    09-11-2015

View PostJ311yfish, on 04 February 2018 - 12:50 PM, said:

 

Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress (07/1935)

Boeing B-29 Superfortress (09/1942)

Boeing B-50 Superfortress (06/1947)

Boeing B-52 Stratofortress (04/1952)

B-52 maybe too advanced, since it was armed with 1 20mm vulcan, and continues to serve till 21st century.

What about: B-17

                    B-29

                    B-36

                    B-47



SlickChickII #27 Posted 05 February 2018 - 05:37 AM

    Senior Airman

  • Alpha tester
  • 494 battles
  • 22
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
Would love to see a B-24 in game.

pyantoryng #28 Posted 05 February 2018 - 12:46 PM

    Major

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 941 battles
  • 7,496
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostEinssniper, on 05 February 2018 - 05:27 AM, said:

B-52 maybe too advanced, since it was armed with 1 20mm vulcan, and continues to serve till 21st century.

What about: B-17

                    B-29

                    B-36

                    B-47

 

Isn't the Vulcan on B-52 only appear on the H model introduced in the 1960s, and only as rear gun (in-game term would probably be no more powerful than the AM-23 or dual MG213 revolver)...The Vulcan itself is already being used forward-firing by the F-94 Starfire, and is actually nerfed to the 50% firing rate (3000RPM vs 6000RPM).

 

Can't the earlier A model (quad M3 rear turret) be used and that be the end of it? The Vulcan refit could be considered if the quad M3 can't be buffed enough to compete with the tail cannons of other lines, though.



WoWP makes a great jousting game...especially with the 262 and people busy in furballs...
I am deaf, silent, and fly with unrealistic controls. Do not count on me to carry - my back's already broken from overweight.

FIight #29 Posted 07 February 2018 - 02:08 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 2000 battles
  • 608
  • [HVAR] HVAR
  • Member since:
    09-11-2015

View Postpyantoryng, on 05 February 2018 - 07:46 AM, said:

 

Isn't the Vulcan on B-52 only appear on the H model introduced in the 1960s, and only as rear gun (in-game term would probably be no more powerful than the AM-23 or dual MG213 revolver)...The Vulcan itself is already being used forward-firing by the F-94 Starfire, and is actually nerfed to the 50% firing rate (3000RPM vs 6000RPM).

 

Can't the earlier A model (quad M3 rear turret) be used and that be the end of it? The Vulcan refit could be considered if the quad M3 can't be buffed enough to compete with the tail cannons of other lines, though.

 

B-52 could fly at 1000km/h, and I believe vulcan rear gun will cause much more tear, considering RB has only NS-23 and is already causing much tear.

Not to say its incredible payload that insta-caps all sectors in several minutes, B-52 is balanced if I could use Mirage-3 or Mig-21 to intercept it.


Edited by Einssniper, 07 February 2018 - 04:31 PM.


mnbv_fockewulfe #30 Posted 07 February 2018 - 02:18 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 148 battles
  • 2,065
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

View PostEinssniper, on 07 February 2018 - 02:08 PM, said:

 

B-52 could fly at 1000km/h, and I believe vulcan rear gun will cause much more tear, considering RB has only NS-23 and is already causing much tear.

Not to say it's incredible payload that insta-caps all sectors in several minutes, B-52 is balanced if I could use Mirage-3 or Mig-21 to intercept it.

 

Most fighters at T10 can achieve more than 1000km/h under boost.

And besides, according to WG you should be attacking bomber in your XF-90, not your La-160.


Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.

 

mnbv_fockewulfe.png


 


pyantoryng #31 Posted 07 February 2018 - 02:49 PM

    Major

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 941 battles
  • 7,496
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostEinssniper, on 07 February 2018 - 02:08 PM, said:

 

B-52 could fly at 1000km/h, and I believe vulcan rear gun will cause much more tear, considering RB has only NS-23 and is already causing much tear.

Not to say it's incredible payload that insta-caps all sectors in several minutes, B-52 is balanced if I could use Mirage-3 or Mig-21 to intercept it.

 

What about the AM-23 tail and dual MG213 tail in tier 10? The RB-17's NS-23 isn't in the same league as the other ones at the same tier due to its 1km stock range and around 1.4km fully extended, which is only achieveable by tier 10 GAA rear gun at the moment. Add to the fact you can use an elite Ilyushin rear gunner on it without retraining, you have a recipe for nightmare, although you do have to sacrifice one slot for RGS (which could've gone for more armor, bombsight, or engine tuning) and 5 skill points on the range skill (likely sacrificing defensive fire for critical up for maximum destruction) to achieve that kind of range. Even if Vulcan ended up a rear gun, I doubt it would stray far out of the tier 10 rear gun parameters already established.

 

The B-47's 28x500lbers (which fits the ingame paradigm the best) in four clusters of seven or seven clusters of four...is interesting to think about. That seems to be a great fit, but how is it going to be balanced... I concur though, 70k pounds of ordnance will need to be either capped or the B-52 won't fit.



WoWP makes a great jousting game...especially with the 262 and people busy in furballs...
I am deaf, silent, and fly with unrealistic controls. Do not count on me to carry - my back's already broken from overweight.

FIight #32 Posted 07 February 2018 - 04:35 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 2000 battles
  • 608
  • [HVAR] HVAR
  • Member since:
    09-11-2015

View Postmnbv_fockewulfe, on 07 February 2018 - 09:18 AM, said:

 

Most fighters at T10 can achieve more than 1000km/h under boost.

And besides, according to WG you should be attacking bomber in your XF-90, not your La-160.

 

well, considering most t10 planes struggle to reach 1000km/h. That vulcan rear gun is equivalent

to 4 revolver 20mm.



pyantoryng #33 Posted 07 February 2018 - 05:32 PM

    Major

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 941 battles
  • 7,496
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostEinssniper, on 07 February 2018 - 04:35 PM, said:

 

well, considering most t10 planes struggle to reach 1000km/h. That vulcan rear gun is equivalent

to 4 revolver 20mm.

 

I think 1000kph can only be achieved in a steep dive...which certainly isn't going forward.

WoWP makes a great jousting game...especially with the 262 and people busy in furballs...
I am deaf, silent, and fly with unrealistic controls. Do not count on me to carry - my back's already broken from overweight.

FIight #34 Posted 07 February 2018 - 10:12 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 2000 battles
  • 608
  • [HVAR] HVAR
  • Member since:
    09-11-2015

View Postpyantoryng, on 07 February 2018 - 12:32 PM, said:

 

I think 1000kph can only be achieved in a steep dive...which certainly isn't going forward.

Still heavy bombers are hard to balance. Given that they tend to add planes with only

blueprints and test-flighted before 1950, I guess B-45 and XB-46 may fit the role.

https://en.wikipedia...an_B-45_Tornado

https://en.wikipedia...i/Convair_XB-46


Edited by Einssniper, 07 February 2018 - 10:13 PM.


J311yfish #35 Posted 08 February 2018 - 10:21 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 284 battles
  • 1,080
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

View PostEinssniper, on 07 February 2018 - 05:12 PM, said:

Given that they tend to add planes with only blueprints and test-flighted before 1950

 

That is a popular misconception.  See Gloster Javelin and Ilyushin IL-40P, for example, to prove it is not correct.

 

See here.


Tech tree projects:  JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  //  Italy    France  //  Sweden    Finland (skins)    Poland    China    Brazil    UNITED STATES  //  Roadmap

Map proposals:  Panama Canal    Great Wall of China    Cliffs of Dover  //  Clan:  343 Kokutai  //  Tutorial How to ignore forum posts and signatures


J311yfish #36 Posted 17 February 2018 - 09:58 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 284 battles
  • 1,080
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

from Developer Blog -- 02/2018 -- part 2:

 

Q. Have you considered adding the Lockheed Hudson bomber to the game?

A. Not in 2018. Possibly in the future.

Q. Will you bring in the Grumman F9F Panther?

A. Same as with the Hudson. Not in 2018. Possibly in the future.

Q. Are there any plans to add the US naval bombers or a GA line for the US and/or UK?

A. Not for 2018. There are plans for the USA B-series bombers.

Q. What are the rough plans for 2018? Could we see more lines than just the new British MRF or German medium bombers, or even new nations?

A. There will be lots of new airplanes in 2018 for almost all classes and for the UK, Germany, the USA, the USSR and Japan. In addition, we even have plans for one for France and one for another European nation, but those are still under discussion.

Q. The A-20 Havoc, B-26, and B-25: will they be tossed into the mix?

A. Not in 2018.

 

 


Tech tree projects:  JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  //  Italy    France  //  Sweden    Finland (skins)    Poland    China    Brazil    UNITED STATES  //  Roadmap

Map proposals:  Panama Canal    Great Wall of China    Cliffs of Dover  //  Clan:  343 Kokutai  //  Tutorial How to ignore forum posts and signatures





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users