Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
VaygrEmpire

USS Hornet aka Doolittle Raiders when?

24 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

151
[DANTO]
Beta Testers
206 posts
6,955 battles

we have fake ships in game anyway, so why not give USA nice present? USS Hornet with Doolittle Raiders - B25 - and skip bombing. 

Bunch of B25s destroyed Amatsukaze - escort dd - near China in April 1945 via skip bombing. I want to fly historically accurate heavy bomber but on cv. It'd have strafing (or rockets) attackers, skip bombing instead of torp bombers, and HE bombers. 

Please?

USAAF B-25 sinks Japanese destroyer Amatsukaze off the coast of Xiamen, China, 6 April 1945 [1203x1404].jpg

  • Cool 1
  • Haha 1
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
287
[WOLFG]
[WOLFG]
Members
982 posts
9,124 battles

As soon as they announced the USS Hornet and skip bombing this was the FIRST thing I thought of. 

WG, seriously. This will absolutely print money on NA. I haven't bought a premium in years but if they did this my credit card would melt I would buy it so fast. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,234
[A-D-F]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,044 posts

Skip bombing is in internal testing right now.  I imagine the ship is in the plans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,383
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
8,304 posts
12,206 battles
56 minutes ago, Falls_USMC said:

As soon as they announced the USS Hornet and skip bombing this was the FIRST thing I thought of. 

when was the USS Hornet announced? that wouldve been all over the forums by now if it was

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,409
[IRNBN]
Members
3,699 posts
10,762 battles

You do realize the Doolittle raid was a 1-way trip, right?

The B-25s had to be loaded aboard by crane dockside at NAS Alameda.

You really want planes that can't come back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
935
[OIL-1]
Members
1,291 posts
9 minutes ago, Balon_Greyjoy said:

You really want planes that can't come back?

Depends on the firepower!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
140
[WOLF1]
Members
518 posts
1,410 battles
3 minutes ago, z9_ said:

Depends on the firepower!

TBH i would prefer B29’s with nuke payloads Doolittle raid style from a pancaked Midway (no superstructure)

 

Grand Slam!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49
[WOLF1]
Members
109 posts
5,723 battles
11 minutes ago, Balon_Greyjoy said:

You do realize the Doolittle raid was a 1-way trip, right?

The B-25s had to be loaded aboard by crane dockside at NAS Alameda.

You really want planes that can't come back?

Yes 

Like in '42, after the B-25s are launched, the normal carrier aircraft can be brought up from the hanger deck. Maybe there's a significant delay during gameplay in loading the flight deck, or a reduced number of planes that can be used after the B-25s.

 

But completely doable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
308
[TDR]
[TDR]
Members
952 posts
10,745 battles
15 minutes ago, Balon_Greyjoy said:

You do realize the Doolittle raid was a 1-way trip, right?

The B-25s had to be loaded aboard by crane dockside at NAS Alameda.

You really want planes that can't come back?

Dont let realism matter in our great arcade game :)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,934
[PVE]
Members
6,953 posts
22,728 battles
2 hours ago, Burnsy said:

Skip bombing is in internal testing right now.  I imagine the ship is in the plans.

I thought I read that it was gonna be on a KM CV (guessing a new premium...at least at 1st). Not sure of the accuracy of that data as it was just a comment in the forums I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,383
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
8,304 posts
12,206 battles
1 hour ago, Balon_Greyjoy said:

You do realize the Doolittle raid was a 1-way trip, right?

The B-25s had to be loaded aboard by crane dockside at NAS Alameda.

You really want planes that can't come back?

CVs also had to turn into the wind to launch aircraft, yet i dont see bearing being an issue for any CV planes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
151
[DANTO]
Beta Testers
206 posts
6,955 battles
53 minutes ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said:

I thought I read that it was gonna be on a KM CV (guessing a new premium...at least at 1st). Not sure of the accuracy of that data as it was just a comment in the forums I believe.

the video that showed skip bombing was tested on german cv.
 

1 hour ago, Balon_Greyjoy said:

You do realize the Doolittle raid was a 1-way trip, right?

The B-25s had to be loaded aboard by crane dockside at NAS Alameda.

You really want planes that can't come back?

oh no they can def come back. Because, why not? just look at all those fake ships in game. I'm pretty sure WG will somehow find mysterious technology to make it sense. Also, which part of being able to heal in mid air makes sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,452
[REVY]
Members
8,099 posts
6,118 battles
1 hour ago, Balon_Greyjoy said:

You do realize the Doolittle raid was a 1-way trip, right?

The B-25s had to be loaded aboard by crane dockside at NAS Alameda.

You really want planes that can't come back?

What does it matter?  CVs regenerate planes...unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,234
[A-D-F]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,044 posts
1 hour ago, Balon_Greyjoy said:

You do realize the Doolittle raid was a 1-way trip, right?

The B-25s had to be loaded aboard by crane dockside at NAS Alameda.

You really want planes that can't come back?

Sure?

Whether the planes come back or the ships makes more, it makes no difference really.  As long as the ship makes them fast enough to keep in the action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,934
[PVE]
Members
6,953 posts
22,728 battles
20 minutes ago, VaygrEmpire said:

the video that showed skip bombing was tested on german cv.
 

oh no they can def come back. Because, why not? just look at all those fake ships in game. I'm pretty sure WG will somehow find mysterious technology to make it sense. Also, which part of being able to heal in mid air makes sense?

I kinda like the historical accuracy behind the cargo hold (that every ordinance carrying plane had of course...except the FDR's rocket planes I guess) that carries around a squadron of fighters they can release w/just the touch of a button.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,409
[IRNBN]
Members
3,699 posts
10,762 battles
4 hours ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said:

I kinda like the historical accuracy behind the cargo hold (that every ordinance carrying plane had of course...except the FDR's rocket planes I guess) that carries around a squadron of fighters they can release w/just the touch of a button.

TBH, I was disabused of any illusion of historical accuracy when I got my first Tier 2 four years ago. I was like, OK the boats are pretty and it's kinda fun, but realistic? Not even close.

Everyone knows the list. Battleships that can't fight broadside. Destroyers with built-in torpedo factories. Radars and hydrophones that only work part-time but can see through islands. Paper fantasy ships. Immunity to grounding/collision damage. No crew casualties or even topside personnel. Starting deployments that look more like a Napoleonic battlefield than a fleet formation. It goes on and on.

We all know this isn't, and never was, a simulation. Too bad, because the art work is there to make a great one.

Edited by Balon_Greyjoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
369
[XXX]
Members
594 posts
1,579 battles
12 hours ago, tcbaker777 said:

CVs also had to turn into the wind to launch aircraft, yet i dont see bearing being an issue for any CV planes

Just like how DDs had no torp reloads right or magic stealth fields? Or BBs which had to be parallel to avoid taking major damage during battle? Wind seems a minor complaint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
287
[WOLFG]
[WOLFG]
Members
982 posts
9,124 battles
22 hours ago, tcbaker777 said:

when was the USS Hornet announced? that wouldve been all over the forums by now if it was

Announced was probably the wrong word. It was mentioned on Reddit, I believe. I forget the exact context. Sorry for the confusion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,659
[-ARP-]
[-ARP-]
Members
1,249 posts
19,528 battles

Because don't you remember, Russia was dominant navy in WW2, so puny doolittle raid is not worth mentioning. 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
110 posts
On 10/17/2020 at 11:59 PM, Balon_Greyjoy said:

You do realize the Doolittle raid was a 1-way trip, right?

The B-25s had to be loaded aboard by crane dockside at NAS Alameda.

You really want planes that can't come back?

 

This is true and probably one of the few sources of realism WG will not budge on. I have a potential solution. Give Hornet the standard US load out of Fighters and Torpedo/Dive bombers, but have her B25s be a one time use consumable. The attack runs would be split up into eight groups of two (since 16 B-25s were used) and use either high altitude bombing similar to Indomitable or WG's patented skip bombing. It's not the greatest idea I've put on digital paper but since it's just after 1 AM for me, I don't think it's that bad of an idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
202
[RBMK2]
[RBMK2]
Members
586 posts
12,266 battles
On 10/17/2020 at 11:59 PM, Balon_Greyjoy said:

 

You really want planes that can't come back?

Well, honestly that's what happens every time I play CV. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30
[ASHIP]
[ASHIP]
Members
97 posts
9,005 battles

    This was already talked about a year or so ago in the Cv forum, just have 4 flights of 4 that dont return to the carrier single plane attacks and skip 4 to 6 bombs, maybe have attack planes as the other plane type like the Indomitable

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×