Jump to content


A revisit: American GAs: "Bombastic Boogaloo"

Aircraft USA GAA GAs GAAs Ground Attack Ground Pounders Suggestions New Aircraft

  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

NovaTempest #1 Posted 12 May 2019 - 03:42 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 6307 battles
  • 350
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

A while back I created a thread on this forum that proposed a "semi-viable" - at least - American GA line that could be implemented into the game at some point, though I look back at it - and while it did do some things well - there was much that was left up in the air.

After running into various other aircraft that could fit the bill, I decided to revisit this topic in a whole new, more organized, concise thread, and included all potentially good aircraft that I could find that could fit in certain tiers (even a few premiums). So, here we go:


Defining Characteristics:
American GA's should be defined as semi-fast, agile ground attack aircraft that rely on ordinance even more so than Russian Ground Attack Aircraft, and emphasize this with a very heavy load of ordinance for their tiers to compensate for a lack of any sizeable forward-firing armament. Starting with mainly bomb ordinance, but expanding with the addition of rockets. Eventually the line does see 20mm guns added, but fewer than what are found on the Ilyushin Line of GA's, and still pail in comparison to the gun power of the German ones.

 

Due to the seeming uncertainty of US aviation strategy regarding ground attack aircraft, the line yo-yo's about with designs considered/used by the US Army and designs considered/used by the US Navy, the two primary corporations involved being Curtiss in the earlier tiers, and Douglas in the latter ones.

American GA's would be (compared to):
Russian Ground Attackers:

- Have less overall health
- Have noticeably less armor
- Higher average speeds
- Higher optimum altitudes
- Shorter Ordinance reload rates
- Quicker Turn Rates
- Generally Weaker Forward firing armament loadouts
- Weaker defensive turrets

German Ground Attackers:
- Have somewhat more overall health
- Have roughly the same - in some potential cases less - armor.
- Slightly Slower average speeds - but higher maximum dive speeds.
- Matching - though in some tiers potentially higher - optimal altitudes.

- Slightly shorter - or matching - ordinance reload rates.
- Quicker turn rates - Considerably quicker when devoid of a rear turret
- Much weaker forward firing armament loadouts
- Slightly weaker defensive turrets - If any at all.
 


Period I:

Tier II:
Curtiss A-3 Falcon > XA-4 > A-5 > A-6
            v
         A-3B


Tier III:

Curtiss A-8 Shrike > Curtiss YA-10 Shrike > Curtiss A-12 Shrike
 
Tier IV:

Curtiss XA-14 > Curtiss A-18 Shrike II


Period II:

Tier V:
Brewster Buccaneer

Vought SB2U Vindicator

Premium: North American A-27

Tier VI:

Nothrop A-17 > Douglas A-33

 

Curtiss A-25 Shrike (Better known as the SB2C Helldiver)

Premium: Beechcraft XA-38 Grizzy

 

Tier VII:

Martin AM Mauler


Period III:

Tier VIII:

Douglas AD-1 Skyraider > XAD-2

 

Tier IX:

Douglas XA-4D1 Skyhawk (Initial prototype)
 

Tier X:
Douglas A-4A Skyhawk
 



With this revised format, the only possible gap is a tier 9 aircraft, and even then a prototype of the A-4A could be used. If someone finds a more fitting tier 9, feel free to share. I am much happier with this arrangement of possible aircraft than my last one.

What do you guys think of it?

EDIT: After a little more thought, this line in some places could perhaps provide a performance bridge between Thunderbolts + Mid-tier hawkers and German GA's, though then again this is all In theory. Of course wargaming may have to fiddle with a few things on some of these planes to keep them competitive, but overall there is certainly a strong ground work here.

 


Edited by NovaTempest, 12 May 2019 - 05:34 PM.


SkyWolf__WM #2 Posted 12 May 2019 - 01:27 PM

    Captain

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 9157 battles
  • 4,580
  • [GW__S] GW__S
  • Member since:
    07-13-2012
I'm not sure what I think, although I have never been in favor of drawing board aircraft in the game.
***************Fail to Suck****************

I shall use my aircraft and my skill to slightly inconvenience mine enemies.


J311yfish #3 Posted 12 May 2019 - 04:08 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2645 battles
  • 1,371
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

Big discussion here ~5 years ago -- Raindrops US Tree Extension -- Douglas and Bell Lines (02/03/2014).

 

There is some work done here by me -- US tech tree project 08/2015 -- mostly for accountability of aircraft and rough organization into tiers (by first flight date when compared to those in game).

 

If it were up to me,  I would consider starting with USN attack aircraft due to tighter constraints on their specifications.  It may offer a clearer path.

 

Another avenue would be to consider closely the Vultee V-11, which formed the basis of the Soviet BSh-1 attack aircraft in game, which eventually evolves to became the IL-2.  V-11 could be a definitive 'fork in the road' for differences between USA and USSR thought process.

 

Another avenue would be to consider the 'legendary' / historically significant / high production aircraft to look for obvious clues and trends.

 

Another avenue would be consider the work of Ed Heinemann chronologically.  There is a book about him that might be at a library near you.

 

It is a can of worms, but there are some resources there in those threads above that might bring transparency and structure to your process -- such as the following lists of US attack aircraft by company and designation (see below).

 

Also, from a chronological point of view -- the Curtiss Falcon (proposed tier II) pre-dates the Boeing P-12 (tier 1) by both first flight date, and introduction to service.  If it were up to me, I would consider the first purpose-built attack aircraft (not converted from Observation) after the dates established by P-12:

 

Boeing P-12 (Model 83 06/25/1928, Model 89 08/07/1928; 11/28/1928 ordered by Navy as F4B-1; entered service 08/08/1929; 02/1929 accepted for Army as P-12; entered service 04/1929) (Davis, 17-18)

 

 

U.S. Attack aircraft by company:

 

USAAC/USAAF/USAF attack aircraft by designation by year:

 

USN/USMC attack aircraft by designation by year:


Edited by J311yfish, 13 May 2019 - 08:36 AM.

Main tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  // aircraft to China

Europe tech tree projects:  ITALY    FRANCE    SWEDEN    Finland (skins•  Poland  •  International  //  Retired projects:  China    Brazil

Historical scenarios:  Spanish Civil War (skins•  Invasion of Poland  •  Winter War  •  Continuation War

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


trikke #4 Posted 12 May 2019 - 05:01 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 3512 battles
  • 3,421
  • [R-A-W] R-A-W
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

seems to me that the whole thunderbolt line is also america's ga line

 

load 'em down with ordinance and let the boys go play        maybe make them the only pixel planes that regains some agility when they pickle off

 

because every RL plane does...          how do you like my sick physics burn, WG?


Spittoon says #smarterpilotswinmore

NovaTempest #5 Posted 12 May 2019 - 05:31 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 6307 battles
  • 350
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

View PostJ311yfish, on 12 May 2019 - 04:08 PM, said:

Big discussion here ~5 years ago -- Raindrops US Tree Extension -- Douglas and Bell Lines (02/03/2014).

 

There is some work done here by me -- US tech tree project 08/2015 -- mostly for accountability of aircraft and rough organization into tiers (by first flight date when compared to those in game).

 

If it were up to me,  I would consider starting with USN attack aircraft due to tighter constraints on their specifications.  It may offer a clearer path.

 

Another avenue would be to consider closely the Vultee V-11, which formed the basis of the Soviet BSh-1 attack aircraft in game, which eventually evolves to became the IL-2.  V-11 could be a definitive 'fork in the road' for differences between USA and USSR thought process.

 

I'm just trying to keep the topic front and center, and I honestly do think all the research you've done - among various others - has been a big contribution. There are some fuzzy bits, but I think the most obscure tiers will be Tier 2 and Tier 7, rather than in my old format where there were question marks at tiers 2-3, 6-7, and tier 9. IIRC Tier 10 may also have been a fuzzy spot in the old version.

The main reason I went with this arrangement is to provide as linear of a line corporation-wise as possible. among the US tech tree lines, the average number of companies that provide designs for each one is 2.8 (When excluding the Tier 1), The most being 5. In any configuration the line as I have arranged with the possible candidates tallies up to 4. While It is a bit awkward that the A-3 falcon's first flight was before the P-12's, there are however variants of the A-3 which can be implimented for modules, which I'll include in the OP.

In short however you are right, this is a can of worms, but one a good number of us are willing to dig into.

Edited by NovaTempest, 12 May 2019 - 05:36 PM.


Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo #6 Posted 12 May 2019 - 05:47 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 1161 battles
  • 4,719
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    01-26-2014

View Posttrikke, on 12 May 2019 - 12:01 PM, said:

because every RL plane does...          how do you like my sick physics burn, WG?

you are starting to become the jaded rebel

and you wear it well

:trollface:

BTW... I'm assuming RL stands for "Rendered Likeness"


if the pilot's good, see, I mean, if he's really..sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low [he spreads his arms like wings and laughs],

you oughtta see it sometime, it's a sight. A big plane like a '52. VRROOM! There's jet exhaust, fryin' chickens in the barnyard.


CorvusCorvax #7 Posted 12 May 2019 - 06:17 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 4225 battles
  • 4,273
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostAce_BOTlistic_Cosmo, on 12 May 2019 - 05:47 PM, said:

you are starting to become the jaded rebel

and you wear it well

:trollface:

BTW... I'm assuming RL stands for "Rendered Likeness"

There are many of us who even though we like the new focus on strategy and things other than shooting other planes down, do not like the loss of the rudimentary flight physics that existed before.  It was arcade-like before, but now is merely cartoony.  Oh, and the loss of the customizable UI.



Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo #8 Posted 12 May 2019 - 06:34 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 1161 battles
  • 4,719
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    01-26-2014

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 12 May 2019 - 01:17 PM, said:

There are many of us who even though we like the new focus on strategy and things other than shooting other planes down, do not like the loss of the rudimentary flight physics that existed before.  It was arcade-like before, but now is merely cartoony.  Oh, and the loss of the customizable UI.

who asked you

:angry:


if the pilot's good, see, I mean, if he's really..sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low [he spreads his arms like wings and laughs],

you oughtta see it sometime, it's a sight. A big plane like a '52. VRROOM! There's jet exhaust, fryin' chickens in the barnyard.


CorvusCorvax #9 Posted 12 May 2019 - 10:22 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 4225 battles
  • 4,273
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostAce_BOTlistic_Cosmo, on 12 May 2019 - 06:34 PM, said:

who asked you

:angry:

 

I did.  :)

Captain_Rownd #10 Posted 12 May 2019 - 11:42 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2294 battles
  • 1,016
  • Member since:
    09-28-2015
Would feel wierd to see Skyraider and Skyhawk in the game, since they still seemed current when I was a kid building models.  I had a aircraft carrier model covered with little Skyhawks. 

Favorites:

SPAD S.510:: MiG-3 :: I-250 :: Ju 88 P :: He 100 D-1 :: Caudron C.714


Bobby_Tables #11 Posted 13 May 2019 - 12:46 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 7876 battles
  • 1,844
  • [-DOW-] -DOW-
  • Member since:
    06-16-2014

View PostAce_BOTlistic_Cosmo, on 12 May 2019 - 11:47 AM, said:

 

BTW... I'm assuming RL stands for "Rendered Likeness"

 

Recycled Larva if I am not mistaken.  

 

And...  IRL stands for Ireland (e.g. IRL Multi-Role planes regain their agility after dropping ordnance.) 

 

Since there is no Ireland multi-role line as yet, there is no ability to regain agility after dropping ordnance.  


Edited by Bobby_Tables, 13 May 2019 - 12:53 AM.


Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo #12 Posted 13 May 2019 - 12:55 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 1161 battles
  • 4,719
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    01-26-2014

View PostBobby_Tables, on 12 May 2019 - 07:46 PM, said:

 

Recycled Larva if I am not mistaken.  

 

And...  IRL stands for Ireland (e.g. IRL Multi-Role planes regain their agility after dropping ordnance.) 

 

Since there is no Ireland multi-role line as yet, there is no ability to regain agility after dropping ordnance.  

point taken... thank you for the lesson sir

.

edit: I'm out of upvotes,

but do appreciate the info


Edited by Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo, 13 May 2019 - 12:58 AM.

if the pilot's good, see, I mean, if he's really..sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low [he spreads his arms like wings and laughs],

you oughtta see it sometime, it's a sight. A big plane like a '52. VRROOM! There's jet exhaust, fryin' chickens in the barnyard.


Trophy_Wench #13 Posted 14 May 2019 - 02:10 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1471 battles
  • 120
  • [TWE] TWE
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostNovaTempest, on 12 May 2019 - 03:42 AM, said:

A while back I created a thread on this forum that proposed a "semi-viable" - at least - American GA line that could be implemented into the game at some point, though I look back at it - and while it did do some things well - there was much that was left up in the air.

After running into various other aircraft that could fit the bill, I decided to revisit this topic in a whole new, more organized, concise thread, and included all potentially good aircraft that I could find that could fit in certain tiers (even a few premiums). So, here we go:


Defining Characteristics:
American GA's should be defined as semi-fast, agile ground attack aircraft that rely on ordinance even more so than Russian Ground Attack Aircraft, and emphasize this with a very heavy load of ordinance for their tiers to compensate for a lack of any sizeable forward-firing armament. Starting with mainly bomb ordinance, but expanding with the addition of rockets. Eventually the line does see 20mm guns added, but fewer than what are found on the Ilyushin Line of GA's, and still pail in comparison to the gun power of the German ones.

 

Due to the seeming uncertainty of US aviation strategy regarding ground attack aircraft, the line yo-yo's about with designs considered/used by the US Army and designs considered/used by the US Navy, the two primary corporations involved being Curtiss in the earlier tiers, and Douglas in the latter ones.

American GA's would be (compared to):
Russian Ground Attackers:

- Have less overall health
- Have noticeably less armor
- Higher average speeds
- Higher optimum altitudes
- Shorter Ordinance reload rates
- Quicker Turn Rates
- Generally Weaker Forward firing armament loadouts
- Weaker defensive turrets

German Ground Attackers:
- Have somewhat more overall health
- Have roughly the same - in some potential cases less - armor.
- Slightly Slower average speeds - but higher maximum dive speeds.
- Matching - though in some tiers potentially higher - optimal altitudes.

- Slightly shorter - or matching - ordinance reload rates.
- Quicker turn rates - Considerably quicker when devoid of a rear turret
- Much weaker forward firing armament loadouts
- Slightly weaker defensive turrets - If any at all.
 


Period I:

Tier II:
Curtiss A-3 Falcon > XA-4 > A-5 > A-6
            v
         A-3B


Tier III:

Curtiss A-8 Shrike > Curtiss YA-10 Shrike > Curtiss A-12 Shrike
 
Tier IV:

Curtiss XA-14 > Curtiss A-18 Shrike II


Period II:

Tier V:
Brewster Buccaneer

Vought SB2U Vindicator

Premium: North American A-27

Tier VI:

Nothrop A-17 > Douglas A-33

 

Curtiss A-25 Shrike (Better known as the SB2C Helldiver)

Premium: Beechcraft XA-38 Grizzy

 

Tier VII:

Martin AM Mauler


Period III:

Tier VIII:

Douglas AD-1 Skyraider > XAD-2

 

Tier IX:

Douglas XA-4D1 Skyhawk (Initial prototype)
 

Tier X:
Douglas A-4A Skyhawk
 



With this revised format, the only possible gap is a tier 9 aircraft, and even then a prototype of the A-4A could be used. If someone finds a more fitting tier 9, feel free to share. I am much happier with this arrangement of possible aircraft than my last one.

What do you guys think of it?

EDIT: After a little more thought, this line in some places could perhaps provide a performance bridge between Thunderbolts + Mid-tier hawkers and German GA's, though then again this is all In theory. Of course wargaming may have to fiddle with a few things on some of these planes to keep them competitive, but overall there is certainly a strong ground work here.

 

 

 

I like it! Very similar to an attempt I had made a few months back although you certainly seemed to favor more USAAF types which is fine. Curious then as to what you think of my work?



J311yfish #14 Posted 27 May 2019 - 03:01 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2645 battles
  • 1,371
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

Best bet for tier II USN attack so far (if determined to use Curtiss) appears to be either:

-- Curtiss Falcon II (Model 72) -- FF 07/1934+ -- SR-1820F-53 745hp -- last Falcon biplane; wings came off during a test dive 11/1934.

-- Curtiss XSBC-1 (Model 73) -- FF 01/1934 -- SR-1820-80 700hp -- new Scout-Bomber designation established 1934; crashed 09/1934.

 

With model 72 being preferable based on features carried forward.  Will explain why later.

 

Note that you will find zero information on Model 72 on Wikipedia.  This is yet another reason why you should not rely on Wikipedia as a primary source, or even as a secondary when fine details matter.

 

For tier III USN attack, continued from above, (again if determined to use Curtiss) so far the best appears to be Model 77:

-- Curtiss XSBC-2 (Model 77) -- FF 12/09/1935 -- XR-1510-12 700hp

-- Curtiss XSBC-3 (Model 77) --  FF 03/1936 -- R-1535-82 700hp

-- Curtiss SBC-3 Helldiver (Model 77A) -- R-1535-94 750hp -- ordered 08/1936, delivered 07/1937+ -- 83 built

-- Curtiss XSBC-4 (Model 77B) -- R-1820-22 750hp

-- Curtiss SBC-4 (Model 77B) -- R-1820-34 850hp -- ordered 01/1938, delivered 03/1939+ -- 124+50 built -- some sent directly to reserve units; some sent to France and later routed to U.K., there named 'Cleveland'; last combat biplane built for USN; 3 squadrons in service at the time of attack on Pearl Harbor (2 carrier-based USN,  and 1 land-based USMC that remained in service until 06/1943).

 

Model 72 and 73 are transitional (experimental), while Model 77 is the successful execution (and production) of the scout (dive) bomber.

 

All information above from Curtiss Aircraft 1907-1947, by Peter M. Bowers (Putnam 1979)


Edited by J311yfish, 29 May 2019 - 12:26 AM.

Main tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  // aircraft to China

Europe tech tree projects:  ITALY    FRANCE    SWEDEN    Finland (skins•  Poland  •  International  //  Retired projects:  China    Brazil

Historical scenarios:  Spanish Civil War (skins•  Invasion of Poland  •  Winter War  •  Continuation War

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


SkyWolf__WM #15 Posted 27 May 2019 - 03:19 PM

    Captain

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 9157 battles
  • 4,580
  • [GW__S] GW__S
  • Member since:
    07-13-2012

View PostJ311yfish, on 27 May 2019 - 10:01 AM, said:

Best bet for tier II USN attack so far appears to be either:

-- Curtiss Falcon II (Model 72)

-- Curtiss XSBC-1 (Model 73)

 

With model 72 being preferable.  Will explain why later.

 

Note that you will find zero information on Model 72 on Wikipedia.  This is yet another reason why you should not rely on Wikipedia as a primary source, or even as a secondary when fine details matter.

 

I use a copy of "The Great Book of Fighters" that I got a pristine used copy of from Amazon for 30 bucks (new at the time was something like $160.00 USD).  :)
***************Fail to Suck****************

I shall use my aircraft and my skill to slightly inconvenience mine enemies.


trikke #16 Posted 28 May 2019 - 01:20 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 3512 battles
  • 3,421
  • [R-A-W] R-A-W
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostSkyWolf__WM, on 27 May 2019 - 11:19 AM, said:

 (new at the time was something like $160.00 USD).  

 

i have loved ww2 fighters since i was a child, but $160 would be a commitment 


Spittoon says #smarterpilotswinmore

SkyWolf__WM #17 Posted 28 May 2019 - 01:53 AM

    Captain

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 9157 battles
  • 4,580
  • [GW__S] GW__S
  • Member since:
    07-13-2012

View Posttrikke, on 27 May 2019 - 08:20 PM, said:

 

i have loved ww2 fighters since i was a child, but $160 would be a commitment 

 

Amazon has a few used copies for around 20 to 30 dollars now.
***************Fail to Suck****************

I shall use my aircraft and my skill to slightly inconvenience mine enemies.


trikke #18 Posted 28 May 2019 - 12:38 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 3512 battles
  • 3,421
  • [R-A-W] R-A-W
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Amazon sells books?     i can't even imagine that

 

your book is gone, but here's kind of niche book on AMZ

 

German Monoplane Fighters of WWI

by Jack HerrisBob Pearson, et al. | Sep 20, 20144.8 out of 5 stars
 
 
 
a paperback for $40       it's going to stay an awfully tiny niche

 

 

 

 


Edited by trikke, 28 May 2019 - 12:40 PM.

Spittoon says #smarterpilotswinmore

J311yfish #19 Posted 28 May 2019 - 07:40 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2645 battles
  • 1,371
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013
It is a good book and very good place to start.  I have seen it in many libraries, probably because it provides a comprehensive and economical overview. I found a copy through Half Price books, in person, for maybe $10-15 about 4-5 years ago.  When I started tech tree projects it was among my first sources.

Main tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  // aircraft to China

Europe tech tree projects:  ITALY    FRANCE    SWEDEN    Finland (skins•  Poland  •  International  //  Retired projects:  China    Brazil

Historical scenarios:  Spanish Civil War (skins•  Invasion of Poland  •  Winter War  •  Continuation War

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


J311yfish #20 Posted 29 May 2019 - 12:42 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2645 battles
  • 1,371
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

View PostNovaTempest, on 11 May 2019 - 10:42 PM, said:

Due to the seeming uncertainty of US aviation strategy regarding ground attack aircraft, the line yo-yo's about with designs considered/used by the US Army and designs considered/used by the US Navy, the two primary corporations involved being Curtiss in the earlier tiers, and Douglas in the latter ones.


What do you guys think of it?

 

Theme

I have been looking at this closer from the USN/USMC side and there are some clear indicators in the text about the design evolution of USN/USMC attack aircraft. I do not think it is necessary to 'yo yo' among different designs in order to achieve a theme that is divorced from operational requirements and their resulting specifications.  It should be possible to distinguish 2 attack lines, such as USN/USMC and USA/USAF.  Though they sampled from each other, they did not reach the same conclusions.

 

USN/USMC

-- preference for single-engine aircraft (SB BT [combines SB and TB] → A); 2-seat dive bombers to 1-seat turboprop; competition primarily between Curtiss and Douglas

 

USA/USAF

-- preference for twin-engine aircraft; began as low-level strafing, dive bombing rejected (evidenced by A-24, Vultee Vengeance)

 

Operational vs Developmental

Also, one of the challenges in selecting aircraft is in favoring 'operational' (as Japanese Army fighter line) vs 'developmental'.  The 'operational' line favors aircraft that were actually used/produced, while the 'developmental' line favors the evolution of design from one aircraft to the next.  Example:

 

USN/USMC ATTACK

Tier Operational Developmental engine reference
II Great Lakes BG-1 Northrop Gamma Grumman F2F
III Curtiss SBC Helldiver Douglas BT-1

Grumman F3F

Brewster F2A-1

IV Douglas SBD-3 Dauntless Douglas SBD-3 Dauntless

Brewster F2A Buffalo

Seversky 2PA

V Douglas SBD-5 Dauntless Douglas SBD-5 Dauntless

Boeing B-17D

Grumman F4F Wildcat

Grumman XP-50

Boeing B-17G

VI Curtiss SB2C Helldiver Douglas BTD Destroyer

Chance-Vought F4U-1 Corsair

Douglas A-26B Invader

Republic P-47B

VII Douglas AD Skyraider Douglas AD Skyraider Consolidated B-32 Dominator
VIII Martin AM Mauler  

Goodyear F2G Super Corsair

Republic XP-72

IX Douglas A2D Skyshark Douglas A2D Skyshark Westland Wyvern
X Douglas A4D Skyhawk Douglas A2D Skyshark (swept wing)  

 

Notes

-- Martin AM Mauler could be a good choice post-Skyraider due to greater engine power and payload, detail needed.

-- A mixed-power version of the BTD Destroyer was tried and rejected (ref: Curtiss XF15C)

-- A swept-wing version of the Skyshark with greater engine power was projected before the program was halted.

 

Non-Historical Timeline

Remember also that the game does not necessarily trace aircraft design from our (normal) historical timeline, but rather a timeline projected forward from ~1942 in which each nation is able to project forward to more advanced designs.  This is most obvious with Germany and Japan, and would be the same for Italy if introduced.  It is less obvious with United States, United Kingdom, USSR, in which production plans are altered.  I mention this because in order to have proper adversaries, from one line to the next, it is necessary to consider the rivals or counterparts to these attack lines.  How would the Douglas A2D Skyshark compare to the Westland Wyvern, for example, and how would each of them compare to the Nakajima Ki-201 (none of which are in game yet)?

 

Questions

-- what does the introduction of Douglas A-26B Invader as a premium indicate about future plans for American attack or bomber aircraft?  And, what in turn might that mean for the introduction of medium bombers for other nations (UK Avro Lancaster, France LeO 451 B4)?

 


Edited by J311yfish, 30 May 2019 - 01:27 PM.

Main tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  // aircraft to China

Europe tech tree projects:  ITALY    FRANCE    SWEDEN    Finland (skins•  Poland  •  International  //  Retired projects:  China    Brazil

Historical scenarios:  Spanish Civil War (skins•  Invasion of Poland  •  Winter War  •  Continuation War

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, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users