Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
WanderingGhost

Poll: CV's - Twin engine and jet aircraft.

Jet fighters and Twin engine aircraft on CV's  

71 members have voted

  1. 1. Add twin engine aircraft as potential attack planes?

    • No
      28
    • Yes, as progression (top aircraft of the tier)
      5
    • Yes, as an option (Choose to use it for different strengths/weakness)
      19
    • Either/or
      3
    • is that bacon?
      15
  2. 2. Add Twin Engine (Heavy) Fighters to the game?

    • No.
      29
    • Yes, as progression (top aircraft of the tier)
      9
    • Yes, as an option (Choose to use it for different strengths/weakness)
      13
    • Either/or
      4
    • I'm pretty sure I smell bacon
      15
  3. 3. Bring reworked Jet Fighters back to the game?

    • No
      30
    • Yes, as progression (top aircraft of the tier)
      15
    • Yes, as an option (Choose to use it for different strengths/weakness)
      7
    • Either/or
      2
    • I definitely smell Bacon
      16
  4. 4. Bacon

    • Regular
      18
    • Crispy
      25
    • Extra Crispy
      4
    • Cooked via Jet Engine
      23

55 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

875
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,449 posts
8,103 battles

So I recently glanced back at my thread on a UK CV line and considered either narrowing down or expanding on aircraft. And to that end, having also posted a couple premiums that would feature such aircraft - Where would the community stand on bringing in twin engine aircraft? And beyond that, at least in a limited role and reworked a bit - jets?

 

So, here's where my heads at on this idea. Especially when it comes to the attack planes with rare exception, these are generally going to be more a tier 9/10 idea, as CV's quite literally get bigger. Obviously, things tested and actually flown from a CV would be on the list (Naval Hornet/Mosquito's, PBJ's, F7F, etc) however for a navy that did not, using those planes as sort of a guideline maybe fill in with aircraft that are similar in weight, size, etc. The question then is do they become "progression" aircraft (the next you unlock in the tech tree) or optional aircraft, similar to the AP/HE choice of USN, or the torp options on higher tier IJN DD's. In terms of optional I think the advantage would depend on the aircraft. So for example a PBJ may be slower, but better HP and defensive DPS while if the F7F was optioned as an attack plane, maybe it boasts an edge in speed at the cost of something else. In terms of armament, keep them closer to what already exists just so damage doesn't get crazy if something has a higher payload. While I'm sure none of them can carry 4000 pounds of bombs or really insane things like tallboys -figured I'd cut that off before anyone suggests it. Unless Wargaming wants to nerf CV Alpha damage to a point that 4000 pounds of bombs or a tallboy roughly equals or is maybe only a little higher than it is now.

 

As for heavy fighters, which you again have some of those same aircraft, talking Naval Mosquito's, F7F's, XF5U, Ki-102, etc. And Jet's fall into a similar line of thinking for me here albeit, dialed up further. While some may not have managed to work this way historically in the HF category, in game HF's and Jet Fighters would essentially function as interceptors. Lower DPS and (in most cases) HP [Less time on target, lower maneuverability, in the case of jets also more fragile engines and all], but gaining more speed to run down bombers, and out run fighters. Ideally, strafing would be fixed, or the DPS low enough that the strafe's aren't as devastating and problematic, but basically if say, all 3 were in game current fighters would be the slowest, but the best at taking out any aircraft type in combat. Jet's would be the fastest and great for running down bombers even if your planes are kind of out of position from scouting, a fight, rearming, whatever. But while they can deal with bombers, not as great against the regular fighters. HF's would sorta fall into the almost "just right" category. Not as fast as a jet, but not as slow as a single engine plane. Not the best vs a regular fighter, but better than a jet is. It would again come down to Progression vs option. The line down the tree is easy enough, we used to have jet's and I think some twin engines (been a while). In terms of options done right there would hopefully be no "best" option by default between 2 or 3 options. Jet's are faster and can catch bombers, but aren't necessarily killing them faster, and at a disadvantage in a fight with HF or regular fighters. Regular fighters will kill the bombers faster, if they catch them and does better in a fight against HF and jets, but that speed being slower can be a pain. Sure HF are faster than fighters and better in a fight than jets, but they aren't faster than a jet nor do they have as great an advantage in a fight as a fighter. Someone, were we to go back to CV's having 2 loadout options, running an AS option may prefer fighters or HF because having more means they don't need speed to try and cover an area and can opt for the more effective destroyers, whereas a strike loadout may prefer HF or jets because it has 1 less fighter group to cover the same area. Or maybe it's reversed and because they have more AS leans on HF or jets because they have more groups even though the damage is lower while Strike leans more on fighters and HF because they are stronger overall in a fight.

 

So, what do you guys think? Would you like to see where maybe the Navy doesn't cancel things and we see PBJ's and XF5U's taking off Essex and Midway class CV's? Duels between the F7F and the Mosquito/Hornet? FH-1 Phantoms/F2H Banshees/F9F Panthers squaring off against Sea Vampires/Meteors of the UK or from Japan the Kikka and possibly a jet powered version of the J7W1? A Midway with tougher dogfighting Corsairs vs one with faster jet interceptors in a clash of old vs new?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
472
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
1,838 posts
5,881 battles

Given that as far as I know, 1940s Japanese Technology is subpar compared to the US and Europeans... the only way I see it happening is giving the IJN the US varients of  the same planes like they did for the Japanese Self Defense Forces. In other words, same plane vs same plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
285
[BLUMR]
Members
2,048 posts
7,233 battles
1 minute ago, Vangm94 said:

Given that as far as I know, 1940s Japanese Technology is subpar compared to the US and Europeans... the only way I see it happening is giving the IJN the US varients of  the same planes like they did for the Japanese Self Defense Forces. In other words, same plane vs same plane.

Paper planes... literally?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,459
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,801 posts
7,047 battles

Rocket assisted takeoffs were a thing, so in theory Mosquitos could get airborne off a cv.  Much as I would love to see Lancaster bombers launched from cvs, credible sources have told me to shut up and stop being silly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
575
[PLPTV]
Members
1,457 posts
9,077 battles
12 minutes ago, WanderingGhost said:

So I recently glanced back at my thread on a UK CV line and considered either narrowing down or expanding on aircraft. And to that end, having also posted a couple premiums that would feature such aircraft - Where would the community stand on bringing in twin engine aircraft? And beyond that, at least in a limited role and reworked a bit - jets?

 

So, here's where my heads at on this idea. Especially when it comes to the attack planes with rare exception, these are generally going to be more a tier 9/10 idea, as CV's quite literally get bigger. Obviously, things tested and actually flown from a CV would be on the list (Naval Hornet/Mosquito's, PBJ's, F7F, etc) however for a navy that did not, using those planes as sort of a guideline maybe fill in with aircraft that are similar in weight, size, etc. The question then is do they become "progression" aircraft (the next you unlock in the tech tree) or optional aircraft, similar to the AP/HE choice of USN, or the torp options on higher tier IJN DD's. In terms of optional I think the advantage would depend on the aircraft. So for example a PBJ may be slower, but better HP and defensive DPS while if the F7F was optioned as an attack plane, maybe it boasts an edge in speed at the cost of something else. In terms of armament, keep them closer to what already exists just so damage doesn't get crazy if something has a higher payload. While I'm sure none of them can carry 4000 pounds of bombs or really insane things like tallboys -figured I'd cut that off before anyone suggests it. Unless Wargaming wants to nerf CV Alpha damage to a point that 4000 pounds of bombs or a tallboy roughly equals or is maybe only a little higher than it is now.

 

As for heavy fighters, which you again have some of those same aircraft, talking Naval Mosquito's, F7F's, XF5U, Ki-102, etc. And Jet's fall into a similar line of thinking for me here albeit, dialed up further. While some may not have managed to work this way historically in the HF category, in game HF's and Jet Fighters would essentially function as interceptors. Lower DPS and (in most cases) HP [Less time on target, lower maneuverability, in the case of jets also more fragile engines and all], but gaining more speed to run down bombers, and out run fighters. Ideally, strafing would be fixed, or the DPS low enough that the strafe's aren't as devastating and problematic, but basically if say, all 3 were in game current fighters would be the slowest, but the best at taking out any aircraft type in combat. Jet's would be the fastest and great for running down bombers even if your planes are kind of out of position from scouting, a fight, rearming, whatever. But while they can deal with bombers, not as great against the regular fighters. HF's would sorta fall into the almost "just right" category. Not as fast as a jet, but not as slow as a single engine plane. Not the best vs a regular fighter, but better than a jet is. It would again come down to Progression vs option. The line down the tree is easy enough, we used to have jet's and I think some twin engines (been a while). In terms of options done right there would hopefully be no "best" option by default between 2 or 3 options. Jet's are faster and can catch bombers, but aren't necessarily killing them faster, and at a disadvantage in a fight with HF or regular fighters. Regular fighters will kill the bombers faster, if they catch them and does better in a fight against HF and jets, but that speed being slower can be a pain. Sure HF are faster than fighters and better in a fight than jets, but they aren't faster than a jet nor do they have as great an advantage in a fight as a fighter. Someone, were we to go back to CV's having 2 loadout options, running an AS option may prefer fighters or HF because having more means they don't need speed to try and cover an area and can opt for the more effective destroyers, whereas a strike loadout may prefer HF or jets because it has 1 less fighter group to cover the same area. Or maybe it's reversed and because they have more AS leans on HF or jets because they have more groups even though the damage is lower while Strike leans more on fighters and HF because they are stronger overall in a fight.

 

So, what do you guys think? Would you like to see where maybe the Navy doesn't cancel things and we see PBJ's and XF5U's taking off Essex and Midway class CV's? Duels between the F7F and the Mosquito/Hornet? FH-1 Phantoms/F2H Banshees/F9F Panthers squaring off against Sea Vampires/Meteors of the UK or from Japan the Kikka and possibly a jet powered version of the J7W1? A Midway with tougher dogfighting Corsairs vs one with faster jet interceptors in a clash of old vs new?

Both jets and twin engine aircraft were in the game during open beta ... it didnt last long.

The idea is solid, but current CV mechanics will prevent it from being implemented properly. CVs need to be fully reworked before WG revisits this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,271
[RKLES]
Members
7,206 posts
8,979 battles

Imagine the Graf Zepplin with Me 262 Jet Fighters... :Smile_amazed: 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
61
[B-W-M]
[B-W-M]
Members
326 posts
4,659 battles

B17, Black Widow and Lightning for two engined. Would like to see B17 as a bomber option. The pucker factor on Battleships with bad AA would be awe inspiring.

  • Funny 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,996
[ARGSY]
Members
6,293 posts
4,256 battles

The early jets - the VERY early jets - used by the USN did not, I believe, have significantly greater performance than the hottest, fastest prop fighters. They were mostly there to gain experience with jet operations on carriers. In addition, their range and endurance were awful and they introduced serious complications into the carrier deck working cycle.

 If you wanted to add them, you might have to introduce endurance/fuel state and even losses on deck landing in order to balance them properly. Either that or take an across-the-board nerf in recycle and launch times if you wanted to take jets on board.

IIRC the F7F was intended for carrier operations but did not work out too well, and usually ended up operating from land.

Later twin-engined carrier-based bombers were primarily nuclear in role, and have no place in this game.

If you wanted to take Mitchells on for a one-shot launch with no recovery required, a scenario could be interesting for that.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,996
[ARGSY]
Members
6,293 posts
4,256 battles
1 minute ago, cavscout1739 said:

B17, Black Widow and Lightning for two engined. Would like to see B17 as a bomber option. The pucker factor on Battleships with bad AA would be awe inspiring.

There is no way in hell you could operate a B-17 from a carrier.

In addition, experience with level bombing from B-17s did not meet with much success IRL.

It might be a thing for a scenario vs. land-based enemy (AI) aircraft, but not as part of a carrier air group.

The Black Widow was too large to operate from WW2 carriers, and I suspect the Lightning would not have been welcome either - the aim is to maximise the air group, and twins that cannot be struck into the hangar are only going to be a pain.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,996
[ARGSY]
Members
6,293 posts
4,256 battles
13 minutes ago, DarthZeppelin said:

Rocket assisted takeoffs were a thing, so in theory Mosquitos could get airborne off a cv. 

IIRC both the Mosquito and its single-engined descendant the Hornet had seafaring versions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
426
[STP]
[STP]
Beta Testers
2,036 posts
11,216 battles

I miss the jets on midway, they are awesome. Fun fact: the TX planes (with midway lost) fly FASTER then the old jets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
74
[VOP]
Members
269 posts
7,034 battles

I believe the Germans shared Me262 and Me163 technology with Japan late in the war.  The biggest planes would be twin engine and it would be a one way trip like the Doolittle raid.  The CV would launch one strike and lose all the planes when done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,105
[WUDPS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,840 posts
4,733 battles
21 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Imagine the Graf Zepplin with Me 262 Jet Fighters... :Smile_amazed: 

Komets :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
333 posts
3,410 battles

If we are going to consider one way planes then the Japanese Kamikaze planes should be in game for balance reasons.  :cap_rambo:  Just saying.  :cap_popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,271
[RKLES]
Members
7,206 posts
8,979 battles
23 minutes ago, Dr_Venture said:

Komets :)

As awesome as Komets would be, their Rocket engines had way too short of time limit to be used for CV. They could only have powered flight for take off, couple passes at enemy bombers and then glide for final landing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,105
[WUDPS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,840 posts
4,733 battles
5 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

As awesome as Komets would be, their Rocket engines had way too short of time limit to be used for CV. They could only have powered flight for take off, couple passes at enemy bombers and then glide for final landing.

Deutschland-UBER-ALLES-MAGIC-ENGINEERING-SAYZ-NO!

 

(no I get it honestly, but that thing was the most fun to abuse in warblunder.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
245
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
1,347 posts
9,543 battles

I could see something like the Sea Hornet on RN CV's to make up for the small airwings, maybe the Vampire at tier 10 in small squadrons for the same reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,271
[RKLES]
Members
7,206 posts
8,979 battles
3 minutes ago, Dr_Venture said:

Deutschland-UBER-ALLES-MAGIC-ENGINEERING-SAYZ-NO!

 

(no I get it honestly, but that thing was the most fun to abuse in warblunder.) 

Yeah lol had game few years back called X Planes and it was flight simulator that had a ton of planes including most of the X planes. Komet was fun to fly I must say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,209
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,624 posts
9,027 battles

Both twin engine and jet aircraft only became viable with the catapult so no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
726
[HYDRO]
Members
1,571 posts
3,751 battles

If the Hornet gets introduced to the game, you could add an option for having B-25s, as a nod to the Doolittle raid. :Smile_great:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,417
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
5,067 posts
6,768 battles
2 hours ago, DarthZeppelin said:

Rocket assisted takeoffs were a thing, so in theory Mosquitos could get airborne off a cv.  Much as I would love to see Lancaster bombers launched from cvs, credible sources have told me to shut up and stop being silly. 

i believe that was the purpose of that giant ice carrier that the RN was planning, Project Habakkuk, basically a mobile airfield 

iceberg-aircraft-carrier.jpg

note thats a KGV class beside it and how dwarfed it looks in comparison 

Edited by tcbaker777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,378
[HINON]
Members
9,019 posts
2 hours ago, tcbaker777 said:

i believe that was the purpose of that giant ice carrier that the RN was planning, Project Habakkuk, basically a mobile airfield 

 

note thats a KGV class beside it and how dwarfed it looks in comparison 

WG has teased her before as well haha

nVhszER.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,225
[WOLF3]
Members
6,439 posts
2,405 battles

I voted Bacon in #2 because the question doesn't specify whether they would be carrier-based.

For land-based planes, yes, I'd like to see such as Betty.  For CV, no way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52
[-BSS-]
Members
484 posts
2,927 battles
15 minutes ago, RipNuN2 said:

WG has teased her before as well haha

nVhszER.jpg

Maybe as a Christmas operation? Task force does an operation like Halloween filollowed by coming against this behemoth, constant and endless air attacks, would also make a funny April fools CV to CV players that have reached T10, a T10 CV with 300 planes, but all are T7-T8, Des Moines will feast again! Although it would have a lot of health aN be nearly indestructible, especially by CV snipe, it could only move 6 knots, and its detection range in game might rival Lexington’s, again, April fools.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×