Unit requests thread

troytheface said:
Curtiss SC-1 Seahawk - another attack floatplane
Click to expand...
You do realize that "attack/fighter floatplanes" were hopelessly outclassed by any fighter that didn't have massive drag-inducing/maneuverability-inhibiting floats strapped to the bottom of the plane?

Yes... the Japanese had a lot of fighter floatplanes, and dominated skies where there was no fighter oposition, or were opposed planes that belonged in a museum.

It was just another flawed concept that didn't work-out.

The best role for a floatplane was observation/scouting... not fighting (unless your opponent had no fighters).

This is probably why the Surcouf carried no fighter floatplanes... maybe that will make sense to you.
 
One of the greatest fallacies of all time. The heralded carrier and the whole idea of carrier based planes was simply pushed by the military.
I suggest float plane fighters which could be virtually catapulted off of anything could have won the war. Certainly the Wildcat, one of the greatest fighters of all time, could be.
In the end what do most navies have, small vertical take off pocket carriers. Ie- seaplanes were the future- big carriers were political,
unneccessary, and archaic.
 
troytheface said:
One of the greatest fallacies of all time. The heralded carrier and the whole idea of carrier based planes was simply pushed by the military.
I suggest float plane fighters which could be virtually catapulted off of anything could have won the war. Certainly the Wildcat, one of the greatest fighters of all time, could be.
In the end what do most navies have, small vertical take off pocket carriers. Ie- seaplanes were the future- big carriers were political,
unneccessary, and archaic.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Frankly, I think the whole "gunpowder" thing is over-rated too... we should still be clubbing each-other over the head with rocks and stones... so much more effective in combat.
 
Wolfshanze said:
:rolleyes:

Frankly, I think the whole "gunpowder" thing is over-rated too... we should still be clubbing each-other over the head with rocks and stones... so much more effective in combat.
Click to expand...

Are you being sarcastic? :lol:
 
Wolfshanze said:
:rolleyes:

Frankly, I think the whole "gunpowder" thing is over-rated too... we should still be clubbing each-other over the head with rocks and stones... so much more effective in combat.
Click to expand...

If you did your research, Wolfie, you'd know that this whole 'hurling stones and clubbing' stuff was enforced by the chieftains with utter political ambitions ... to control more women! :rolleyes: ;) :lol:
 
well 1 Swordfish float plane was one of the first to sink a enemy ship in Europe. (think a Wildcat was the first American plane to shoot
down a plane in Europe. A Kingfisher shot down a Zero in the Aluetians.

The great pearl harbor assault sank 2 stationary ww1 style battleships. (2 others refitted and able to continue) How many moving american battleships were destroyed by enemy aircraft during the war?
I suggest later in the war that many aircraft carriers were sunk as they were big floating targets.

We all know when a military makes a less accurate decision when it fails such as the Maginot Line- however, it is a bit harder to question when it succeeds.
 
troytheface said:
well 1 Swordfish float plane was one of the first to sink a enemy ship in Europe. (WRONG) (think a Wildcat was the first American plane to shoot down a plane in Europe (WRONG). A Kingfisher shot down a Zero in the Aluetians.

The great pearl harbor assault sank 2 stationary ww1 style battleships (WRONG). (2 others refitted and able to continue (WRONG)) How many moving battleships were destroyed by enemy aircraft during the war (QUITE A FEW ACTUALLY)?
Click to expand...
Some corrections for you there... might want to crack a book sometime.
 
Moderator Action: There has to be military OT subforums you guys would be better served using. As it is now most requests are buried deep. History has it's place, but it isn't in this thread.
 
Well it is a 55-page thread you know... I imagine there are a lot of things burried deep just by size alone.

But yeah... military history as a funny way of cropping up all over the place. :dunno:
 
Wolfshanze said:
You do realize that "attack/fighter floatplanes" were hopelessly outclassed by any fighter that didn't have massive drag-inducing/maneuverability-inhibiting floats strapped to the bottom of the plane?

Yes... the Japanese had a lot of fighter floatplanes, and dominated skies where there was no fighter oposition, or were opposed planes that belonged in a museum.

It was just another flawed concept that didn't work-out.

The best role for a floatplane was observation/scouting... not fighting (unless your opponent had no fighters).

This is probably why the Surcouf carried no fighter floatplanes... maybe that will make sense to you.
Click to expand...

i concur...
however, the F2Y SeaDart would have been good.
skids instead of a float.
something similar could work for an old WWII seaplane. use skids for the landing gear, a retractable float or two in the nose to keep the engine off the water... and a couple hydrofoils, one under each wing, and two under the fuselage.
extend the rudder downward to act as a steering device in the water and improve aerial maneuverability... somewhat.
and you have a decent sea-fighter. maybe a little bit heavy.
add a ball turret like in the Boulton-Paul Defiant (in addition to the forward armament), and this would be pretty devastating, forget speed. when you sacrifice in one area, others benefit. its all about balance.

which brings me to my request... the Boulton-Paul Defiant :D oh... and keep the forward guns from the spitfire too.
 
One Underwater Cruiser, Surcouf was more than enough to strike terrror amongst allies and enemies alike.

My new theory is that the ship was going to be outfitted with the new Wildcatfish prototype armed with M-8 rockets - which would have destroyed anything in the air- and then sent to liberate French Indonesia.

The Fins coverted a Brewster Buffalo with floats "the Water Buffalo- which got up to 354 miles per hour. Request "the WaterBuffalo"
 
Could someone modify the Lancaster model that is out there to have only two engines to produce the Avro 679 Mancester, the plane that led to the Lancaster although, technically it should have been Avro Manchester II as there was a WWI bomber with the same name that didn't really see service and was not built in large numbers.
 
Is there any model of Finnish Jaeger or Red Army Cavalry? If not, would someone do it/them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LilBudyWizer
Defocus
Replies
3
Views
736
The_J
The_J
S
You start with one Unit for free, what would it be?
Replies
18
Views
1K
PeterMoss
P
Putmalk
Putmalk's Icon Dump Thread
Replies
15
Views
720
Brackenspore
Brackenspore
MatteM
Question about air interception animation
Replies
2
Views
551
MatteM
MatteM
V
  • Sticky
TSG 276 Opening Actions
2
Replies
27
Views
980
lerrocco
L
Back
Top Bottom