I stumbled by accident on a few facts about carrier bombers. Maybe that interests few people, Pacific maps aren't really my favorite neither, but it has to be said ;
SBD Dauntless and Aichi "Val" were divebombers. They did not and could not carry a torpedo. The SB2C Helldiver isn't in FH (yet) neither, but this was also a divebomber.
Torpedobombers were the TBD Devastator and later TBD Avenger, for the Jappanese it was the Nakajima B5N "kate" or later B6N "Jill"
Most players will not care at all what they are flying, and generally don't like torpedobombers anyway. But FH isn't vanilla bf1942, so historically correct aircraft and their load is important.
[COLOR=Red]US torpedobomber TBD Avenger[/COLOR]
[COLOR=Red]US torpedobomber TBD Devastator[/COLOR]
[COLOR=Red]Jappanese torpedobomber B5N "Kate"[/COLOR]
[COLOR=Red]Jappanese torpedobomber B6N "Jill"[/COLOR]
10th January 2004
yah, well, its dice, what do you expect, though i think its just a SBD
Well there is a huge diffrence in a SBD and a TBD......
TBD flew in low and were much more vulnerable to being jumped by enemy fighters then SBD were that flew high altitude. TBD were often send in before the SBD too, forcing the enemy fighterscreen to decend so they didn't have time enough to climb again and then attack the SBD's. TBD therefore were heavy armoured and had a powered turret with a 12.7 mm gun.
Torpedobombers were much heavier and slower aircraft then divebombers. Especially in the jappanese torpedobombers you can clearly see they are much larger (longer) then a divebomber like the Aichi "Val" is.
A funny detail is : Both DICE and FH coded the Aichi "Val" to fly with slow and heavy controls, while in reality it was very light with a powerfull engine, and when it's load was dropped almost flew like a Zero......
That goes for all jappanese carrier aircraft, at the expense of armour wich the US carrier aircraft did have.
Dance the dance of life!
10th November 2003
Looks like 2 B5N "Kate" torpedobombers, Manik.....
Achi "Val" divebombers had unretractable landing gear.
A South African Bohemian
9th October 2003
Yea i thought they were going to replace them in .6 with teh correct types to teh correct load ,but guess not. , but OT where did you get those pics
18th March 2004
yeah.. They will most likly be replaces soon.. I hope at least. - Just a question.. why do dive bombers have non-retractable landing gear? Its the same with the stuka. it doesnt either. Just wondering that the benifits are.
24th November 2002
The correct torpedo bombers definitely need to be implemented. I also hate it when I see people using the torpedo bombers that are already in the game as dive bombers...
I post to get attention
29th September 2003
A fixed landing gear increases gear strength, allowing for a higher ramp weight and increased short and/or rough field takeoff/landing performance over retractable gear.
It also increases drag however, making the aircraft less fuel efficient and having a lower maximum speed. This can actually help in a dive bomber, as drag slows the aircraft down in a dive giving the pilot more time to aim and release his bomb(s)
28th December 2003
TheWharGoulyeah.. They will most likly be replaces soon.. I hope at least. - Just a question.. why do dive bombers have non-retractable landing gear? Its the same with the stuka. it doesnt either. Just wondering that the benifits are.
The "older" divebombers used in WWII had fixed landing gears because the wings have to be thick to withstand the rigors of air-drag and airbrakes. (=no place for wheels) Those who was constructed after ..say 37-38(?) didnt have.