TBF Avenger and other planes
 

Hi,

I have a question about why we can't have cockpit view for TBF Avenger. You said one time that it was because we didn't have the right to do that and other stuffs like that, but Warthunder has TBF Avenger as playable plane. I don't see why they can and not us. What's wrong with copyright stuffs from Grumman?

What about B-17, B-29, etc.?

I know that you are not a lot in the team to make all those aircrafts, but I want to know why it can't be done.

Thank you :)

B-17 and B-29 aren't flyable probably because of the huge effort it takes create multi-engined planes with many gunner positions.

As far as the Avenger goes, I believe that 1C came to some sort of legal agreement wit Grumman that they wouldn't use their planes in-game. Perhaps Grumman has a different agreement with the developers of Warthunder, perhaps Warthunder is paying royalties to Grumman.

We don't know the full details except that lawyers that represented N-G corporation very likely sued and won some sort of settlement with Ubisoft/Maddox Studios which allowed them to keep the current N-G content but anything new was strictly forbidden under the agreement. Everything was hush hush and out of the public eye but enough details have made their way out. This was even loosely confirmed by Oleg Maddox but he explained that they couldn't say any more than that.

The problem stemmed from the advertising on the back of the Pacific Fighters box. This is what we theorized. It was also a time when lawyers were suing plastic and die cast model makers trying to get money from them. I believe there is now some legal precedent set as a result of the EA/Battlefield 4 lawsuit involving the AH-1Z Viper attack helicopter but I'm not sure.

Regardless, a legal agreement is in place and any additional work on N-G aircraft is pretty much out of the question for the IL-2 1946 series.

New games and new series are separate. War Thunder can do whatever they want and I suspect in the near future those types of lawsuits have been largely quashed. Not to say that it won't come up again. Stupid stuff like that does tend to.

Due to work being done on the B-24, and past work for the B-25, it would be "relatively easy" to get a flyable B-17E, due to common equipment being used for the different planes. Perhaps 5 existing crew stations could be partially reworked (bombardier, nose, dorsal, waist and tail guns). The ball turret wouldn't need to be reworked at all, other than possibly tweaking animation. It might also be possible to port over some of the cockpit gauges for the pilot/co-pilot stations.

Not surprisingly, the case was settled out of court and the terms of the settlement are undisclosed. No defense contractor wants an unfavorable legal precedent on the books, since it would gut their ability to launch future lawsuits against video game manufacturers.

http://kotaku.com/5874076/ea-invokes...licopter-maker

But, in the years after the NG Consent Decree, the U.S. Supreme Court has made some rulings that could be taken to be favorable to game manufacturer's rights to "free speech."

In particular, they have the right to use the unnamed images of real people without paying royalties:

http://kotaku.com/5838921/ea-has-a-f...rs-judge-rules


Of course, that changes NOTHING with regards to IL2, for the reasons that Icefire mentioned.

There's also the possibility that the Warthunder programmers quietly paid royalties to NG and other defense contractors, precisely to prevent a lawsuit. Different game, different companies, different legal environment.

War Thunder can do whatever they want, because it's not a game, but a screensaver.

btw, I'm glad that Ilyushin or Messerschmitt never sued.

It took two very talented and devoted guys years to make the B 24 we will have in 46. That's right, I said years.

Making the B17 or B29 flyable is a LOT more than just pasting in a few of the common bits from the B24 model. For starters you have to model the interior of every manned station, and the 17 and 29 look nothing like each other, or the 24.

Also the 29 would present other issues as it is really almost from another era of design. The remotely controlled turrets alone would be quite a programming feat I would think.

And none of this gets into building credible flight and damage models for these large, complex airframes.

Just something to think about.

Oh, and about the whole NG thing, you must remember that War Thunder is not an air combat game, it is a very sophisticated money making machine, that preys on it's players desires to buy their way to success, so they have LOTS of money to spend on royalty payments to the large aircraft manufacturing corporations.

I still don't think they have paid any money to license the aircraft. It's just a matter of there have been resistance and precedent set in a few instances now so the lawyers are out looking for money elsewhere these days.

Why dont forget those damned NG planes? There are tons of far more interesting aircrafts in WW2 that would also deserve to be included as flyable: Do-217, Me-410, Spitfire XIV, Typhoon, Tu-2, Su-2, B6N, D4Y to name a few...

Because the US and the Fleet Air Arm operated the TBF/TBM, and the US has no viable torpedo bomber that is player flyable. These aircraft were widely deployed in the Pacific, and the Atlantic, and really are necessary for any kind of campaign that involves carrier operations.

Having the TBF/TBM and the Curtiss Helldiver BTW, would flesh out the compliment for the USN.

And true, we need more Japanese attack aircraft as flyable as well.

As sad as it is not to have Avengers, I think a Helldiver would make a fairly suitable replacement as it has similar capabilities - looks aside. And late war Japanese strike/torpedo aircraft would be a welcome addition, too - as the early war D3A/B5N really are totally obsolete by at least 1944.

All "fair" battles were fought on 1942. After Midway, Japaneese were just overwhelmed. The amount of carriers the US deployed on the Pacific after that, almost required to put traffic lights on mid ocean!

At this point having the SB2C and the B6N or D3Y flyable would probably round out the carrier aircraft fairly well. The TBF/TBM is super important and the key aircraft in the carrier strike wing but it will have to be what it is.

Honestly as time passes IL-2 1946 is slowly fading out. In a few years I hope that the new IL-2 series will catch up to the Pacific and start to have the kinds of features the we enjoy in IL-2 1946... and we can leave this legal stuff in the past. But we'll see. There's a lot of ground to cover between now and then so I suppose the Pacific portion in particular will be key for some time to come.

Sadly I think in a few years the new sim will be history.

I don't think they understand the market, or the needs of the player base.

On an up note, my new computer build has finally allowed me to play the Finnish Hawk Campaign in this sim.

Just got back into it, but enjoying it, even though I'm stuck in Fokkers and Hurries for the moment. As you know I'm not much of an off line guy, but a well crafted off line experience is well worth the time spent.

:cool:

I believe in game US Navy is well represented. Avengers are present, even if AI only, and just a single plane is missing: the Helldiver. With the SB2C, all relevant types would be available, and any carrier deck would be faithfully reproduced for any Pacific battle, from Pearl Harbour to VJ Day. I know, there should be Vindicators up to Midway, but their role was marginal, and I think we can live without them.

About Japanese attack plane, any late war type would be useful mostly as AI. Realistic missions against USN carriers would be almost, or totally suicidal, not particularly attractive for a campaign or career.

for me the il2 needs only a few maps and enough planes and vehicles to be the most complete ww2 sim ever better than war thunder and new il2series even if the graphics are by far the best in new ones

El is right, I fear.

Even if not, there is a huge difference in development cost for each new plane type between the “New Game” and “Good Old Il2”. Ten to one? Twenty to one? Perhaps more, and I can’t even guess the ratio if we talk about carriers.

In short, I think the chances to have in the New Game a plane set comparable to Good Old Il2 are really slim.

Shame there's no P-61 either

Now that the dust has settled and development continues... I'm pretty optimistic about the new generation. It's not going to be the same as the old one with prettier graphics... its definitely different and not everyone is going to like that but I guess we'll see what happens. I'm pretty excited for round two (Battle of Moscow).

Glad to hear you're enjoying the Hawk campaign. Yeah I didn't make the player stick it out too long in the Fokker but its a really great way to break into the experience and you get such a rush when you finally get into the Hawk and flying something fairly competitive. I have to say its not as exciting as some of my other campaigns but on the other side of the coin it follows pretty darn closely to those early days of the Continuation War (Thanks to awesome public records for the Finnish Air Force) and the types of missions and opponents they faced.

Thats what I think too.
You cant have every important plane in IL-2 as flyable. Besides, just check how awfully the Luftwaffe bomber force is represented! Missing entirely: Do-17, Do-217E series, late Ju-88, late He-111, Ju-188. AI only: Do-217K/M, Fw-200. Compare this to USN... Aveger is already ingame, as AI. The only plane that is REALLY missing, the Helldiver.

That’s another type under the Gxxxxxn-Nxxxxxxp ban. I would love to have it flyable, of course, but, giving the time and resources limitation faced by developers (read: TD), choices are unavoidable.

My preference would go to complete already existing scenarios, such as the already mentioned Pacific Theatre. To me, it makes more sense to complete what we have, than have more incomplete scenarios. And – don’t shoot at me – I would shelve the whole night bombers-night fighters lot. Flying night interceptors would be simply to follow a different kind of mini-map, and then fire on a black silhouette barely visible in the dark. Flying bombers, it would be simply sit and wait for invisible fighters coming out from nowhere.

That’s my opinion, of course.

Right with you there. Basically you'd either shoot at barely visible targets - and the bomber AI either is too good and guns you down the instant you open fire, or too bad and you shoot fish in a barrel. And as custom or selectable belting has been requested many times and has not been done, I'd suppose that it is not that easy to do. And with current tracers and muzzle flashes, night fighting is merely a joke - you are blind the instant you fire, and all of the enemies open up at you at once.

And having a flyable late war German bomber would definitley add to this sim - any of them.

Even if its only a He-111H16! That would be relatively easy to add. As far as I know, TD cooperated with yt2, who made the Ju-88A5 and Ju-88P. He did a brilliant He-111 pack, not only adding new variants (including H16), but fixing older, like H6 (missing a front ventral gun, to name one serious problem) too!
Including some variants from his He-111 pack would be a really good addition!
A fixed H2, H6, H12 and a new H16 would be more than enough.

Yt2 for now already part of DT )

Flyable F7F Tigercat and F8F Bearcat variants would be cool but in my dreams....sadly

Your idea doesn’t look to me too far fetched. :grin:
These types would be perfect for a “Pacific 1946”. But a new scenario and several new planes would be needed – the J7W Shinden, for example – and the whole thing will fatally end up as a “new incomplete”.

As I see it, new German bombers are a more realistic proposition. To begin with, they are missing in already available scenarios, such as Eastern Front in 1943. then, they can extend bomber pilot careers. Finally, as Gaunt 1 wrote, updating existing models can pay big dividends.

In my opinion, this is “realistic management of dreams!”:rolleyes:

I saw somewhere a shinden WIP. A really beautifull one.

Agree with german bombers. Ju 86 as bomber/recce ( was/is it WIP???) He111 - Ju88 variants would be nice aditions.
But, IMO, what made this sim great was/is the comunity. All the campaigns. skins, tutorials, etc...Every new item added, a new bombsigth, new fuse settings, triggers, navigation aids, new AI, even a new FM, bring new life to the sim, because it gives new things to learn to all of us, and new things to teach, to discuss. What could give a total and great full orchestra ending to this sim, I guess is that. And what we have to learn, after all this years were we learnt history, geography, a lot of new words in russian, italian, spanish german, tech specs, etc...???
Still we need to learn to fight in the dark. :cool:
Again, this is my humble opinion.

What about the B-25C? I think it would be relatively easy to add:
Forward cockpit and top turret could be taken completely from B-25J, ventral gun would need only a simple periscope view, like in Pe-2. Pilot's cockpit is probably not much different, so I think it wouldnt be hard to make.

The Mediterranian scenario would be near-complete with:

Gladiator => Sea Gladiator (AI, or needs British cockpit to be playable)
Hurricane => Sea Hurricane
G.50 => G.50 FB

As to night operations:

Halifax AI and/or Lancaster AI

at first need repaint J8a => Gladiator MkI and MkII

Of the list of German bombers, the one I'd most like to see if a flyable Fw-200. I really liked what TD was doing with the anti-shipping additions.

Speaking of which, it would also be dead simple to create a "North Atlantic" map. Take the existing "Coral Sea" map, change the latitude, longitude and temperature (winter and summer versions), and perhaps change the water color. Perfect environment for the new B-24D and the new U-boats.

If you wanted to get fancy, you could even do a map that includes a tiny bit of Greenland or Iceland at the North end of the map to give land-based planes a place to land.

I think that the appeal of night operations is mostly in the night-fighter end, since there's an art to tracking bombers using GCI and AI radar.

Night bombing might have some appeal, but unless we get some of the night bombing aids, it's mostly an exercise in instrument flying and dead reckoning. Challenging, but not unique to IL2 or to night bombers.

Actually, unless you're flying in a dark room, the player ISN'T blinded by bright lights at night. That means your virtual pilot or tail gunner retains his night vision when he should be dazzled by searchlights, explosions or muzzle flashes.

There is the Ar-234, which is about as late war as German bombers get. But I don't think that's what you had in mind :)

yeah i want flyable Fw-200 too))

need find the person who could)

This may not be what you had in mind for late war German bomber ... but many of the bomber squadrons transitioned from Ju88 and He111 to the bomber variant of the Me410. Then you could have a mid/late war German heavy fighter/destroyer, bomber, night fighter and whatever else the 410 was adapted to become and its all in one basically the same aircraft. At the same time you could probably have ventured off to do the Me210 and Me210Ca which wasn't too different from the Me410 to begin with.

That would have been ideal IMHO.

I don't claim to have a wealth of knowledge about Luftwaffe aircraft type utilization, but were not most of the bombers pretty much grounded in the late war period as what little fuel the Luftwaffe had available was deemed more important for use by fighters for air defense?

You’re right, I think. Let’s say that “late war” means end of 43, beginning of 44 as far as LW bombers are concerned.

These threads about wished planes are always popular, it seems, and as varied as usual. Nothing bad, here, as long as we understand that we are having a little fun… So, instead of adding another type to the wish list, I’ll try to make some general considerations.

Lets start acknowledging some limitations. Good old Il2 is efficient in simulating tactical, short-range combat, much less for strategic bombing or long-range missions (overseas excluded) for obvious limitation in maps size.
As I understand it, a map for Bomber Command squadrons going from UK to Berlin and back is out of question.
Moreover, it’s impossible to replicate realistically a 1,000 bombers mission, and even – if I’m not mistaken – an Eight AF combat wing.
Lastly, it’s hard to simulate correctly a whole strategic situation. For example: ill directed, badly organized and trained VVS pilots in the early days of Barbarossa. Hopelessly outnumbered and short on fuel Luftwaffe from late 1944 to war’s end.

No less limited are TD’s time and resources. They already made wonders (thanks, guys!) and surely have many surprises in the making, but can we expect to see all WWII scenarios, campaigns, maps and planes? Would love it, but I think not. Also, I understand that many types have been, and will be, selected more with heart and passion that with thoughtful planning.


From these premises, this is my Great Plan.

Set aside long-range types and strategic missions.
Set aside scenarios and maps requiring too many new planes. France 1940 was often mentioned, but would require too many new types: Battle, Lysander, Defiant, Potez 63, Breguet 69, Amiot 143 and 350, Bloch 152, 174, 175 and 210, Caudron 714, LeO 451, just to name some… a dream too good to be true.
Give priority to types that, being missing, prevent realistic missions in existing scenarios. Helldiver on US carrier decks after 1943 is a good example.
Give priority to types that can extend and complete existing career, as a late war Ju88 for LW bomber career.
Give priority to types useful in many roles and scenarios such as the Me410 proposed by IceFire.
Give priority to mid war scenarios, when air superiority was contended on equal terms.
And, finally (for the time being): consider new versions of existing types when easy to be done. A good example is good old I16: bashing existing Type 18 and Type 24 would produce a type 17, a real Type 24 and a Type 28. The last one would require nothing more than changing the name…

Pretty much. Also, many bomber pilots were transitioned over to fighter pilot duties. That said, there were some conversions of later bomber types into night fighter variants, and those were used until the war's end. A few were also used as flying launch platforms for V-1 rockets.

After all that ponderous planning in my previous post, I should have added IMHO… And must admit: I have my personal, far from rational favourites: the Whirlwind and the B26 Marauder… Both would need new maps, very unlikely! Sigh…:(

Much depend on what type of bomber we are talking of. The Me262 saw service as bomber and some work was done on an Ar234 night fighter version. Sometimes, it’s not easy to see logic and consistency in late war LW planning…

Not really.

The Normandy map can stand in for any part of the French coast for "Rhubarb" missions for 1941-42 British fighters and strike fighters.

The B-26 was widely used. Any of the Pacific Island maps, the Normandy map, and any of the Italian maps would be fine for it.

I would accept any map for the Whirlwind!

As for the Marauder, I was dreaming about the Ninth Air Force, where the type really shone, and remembering a fantastic comic story with Ian Kennedy arts. Story was about Marauders in the Pacific (incorrect model and year, but…) fighting against Bettys and Ohkas…:rolleyes:

Actually the B 26 was used for a short time in New Guinea, before being replaced with B 25s. Why couldn't you use the Whirlwind on the Normandy map in an early war scenario?

You’re right, the short wing model. As for the Whirlwind, as I said, I would use any map, any!

Okay if compared to real life -the player is not blinded. The muzzle flash temporarily outshines all other ingame objects, and the slightly more blackish grey of the enemy bomber gets lost against the greyish black of the background. If lucky enough, rinse, wash, repeat. Usually and unlucky - ram bomber you don't see any more. Extra unlucky and very common, given away position, and getting pounded by all bombers nearby.
Another thing that would be useful and maybe even necessary - flames and or glow of exhausts.
Yeah, this thing is fun. No one can catch you(almost). And that's also not too desireable for balance. And it was a rare bird. I was more thinking along the lines of a Do-217/He-177 (already there as AI model).
Whirlwind can use Normandy map. Or the fake British isles (Kuban if I'm not mistaken?) - and it would be highly welcome even without a map.
B-26 is one of my favourites, too, but to be honest -its roles can largley and without too much hassle be occupied by B-25/A-20. As sad as it is, there is no real need for this beautiful plane.

But it made quite some impression on the German footsoldiers serving in Northern Africa, Sicily, Itlay and Normandy. I know from first hand that they used to call all these American twin-enginie bombers, regardless whether A 20 or B-25, just "Marauders".

The B26 had a significant role in the last two years of war, particularly with the Ninth AF. In my opinion, it was a sort of “tactical Flying Fortress”, the best type allied had in this role, until the Invader became available. And in that role it would be perfectly suited for good old Il2. It would efficiently share the same overall scenario with the Typhoon, flying over Northern France, the Ardennes and Southern Germany, pounding the same targets.

The Whirlwind is – to my eyes – the most beautiful WWII type, but honestly it can be considered barely operational, with just 116 examples built, flown by two squadrons only and replaced by the Typhoon. Possibly, the best way to use it is as a starting point for an RAF ground attack pilot career, progressing to the Typhoon and Tempest. As said above, the Typhoon could happily share the same scenario with the B26…

Just an exercise in optimism! ;)

So, if we exclude strategic bombing, I think the following planes would be suitable for IL-2 maps

LW: Ju-88A14, He-111H16, Do-217K/M*, Me-410
US: B-25C, B-25G and H, Helldiver
Soviet: Tu-2

* used as anti shipping bomber too, thats why in the list.

Yes that would fit. And it would find its friends - I'd bet anyone that likes the A-20 would like the B-26. But I don't see the huge gap where this plane is missing, rather a small niche.
And we have a I-185, with Idontknowhowlittle built, among others. I always thought a hypothetical souped up Whirly 1945/46 model would have been a perfect counter against the more realistic 1946 German planes. And given that most prop engines of that time enhanced their power by 1.5 to 2 in their carreres, a fully developed Peregrine with all the bells and whistles would be no more unrealistic as a few other planes IMHO.

That’s because the I185 was a work of love, not the result of rational planning, and I’m grateful to the people that modelled it and shared it with us. Thanks, guys!
In my opinion, the real “what if Whirlwind” would have been a slightly scaled up machine: something around 10% would have sufficed to accommodate Merlin engines. Add four belt fed Hispanos and look what you have: same power and armament as the Mosquito, but smaller and single seat!

That’s an interesting list, even if not includes my favourites… If I’m not mistaken, the Helldiver is the only completely new type requested, all others being already present in AI form, or flyable in other versions.
We are becoming very measured dreamers!

There's a saying in my country: 'If you build castles from the air, don't economize with the brick'.

:grin::grin::grin:

There's at least one problem with your assumption. I started learning to model for Target for Tonight, I have a radar background and, even as a Yank, the only theaters that REALLY interest me are the Commonwealth night bomber offensive, and the North-Atlantic U-boat defense. The only reason I model at all is that, after 20 years of waiting, I still hope. So, the one problem: if you tell me I will NEVER have my night bomber/night fighters, I'm taking my ball and going home.;)

Ok, maybe SOME daylight stuff is ok. I do love that B-26. All the talk about what could be "easily done" by using parts of other birds does not seem to include the B-26, which did have the same turret as the B-24 had (nearly identical).

But, I like the short-wing version in British service. There's is definitely something wrong with my allegiances.

The TBF? I fume to think about having it off-limits. NG was always such a stand-up company--clearly most concerned about giving fighting men something they could REALLY use and repair, giving their workers a real reason to be proud, and giving engineers a reason to do "right" things. I still can't put what happened with that company. An apology from them, and a thanks for all the model builders who became engineers, seems far more characteristic of their legacy.

Did you know that a Hellcat was bounce-tested from a ceiling? It was so rugged that the testers decided to have a little fun. I don't think the cat even noticed it was being abused.

I think we're close to that night fighter scenario. A map of somewhere in Germany, a flyable British bomber, set the lights low, a Bf110G-4 which we've already seen.... would give us some great night fighter/bomber activity.

The B-26 would be amazing however. Very useful over the Normandy map we already have.

Of course, I'm telling you nothing, being just a guy as all of you. In a perfect world, a perfect sim makes everyone happy.:grin:

The short wing B26 was also flown by the USAAF early on, and is my personal favorite of the B26 models because it had the best overall performance.

Yes it was tricky to fly for new pilots, even dangerous really, but as one pilot who liked the short wing version said, "it was a weapon". When flown by well trained pilots is was very good indeed.

Add the fact that it is just stunning to look at and it is a winner.

Wing was short and small. The early B26 was called “the prostitute” because it “had no visible means of support”. But you’re right: it was not designed for joyrides, and as a weapon it was really effective.

I think we were still in that phase of "almost" listening to British war experience, while they were just getting used to letting us find out some things for ourselves. It's amazing that the only flying survivor (that I know of) is the early, hot rod version.

Two different wars.

Of the two, the "easier" one to get into the game is the Battle of the Atlantic.

Depth charges as a load-out (actually, just delayed action bombs since IL2 doesn't handle water depth or submarine behavior properly).

One ASW radar for the Liberator. (Perhaps British instruments, guns, radars, etc. for the Liberator VLR variant.)

Big map of the North Atlantic. Steely gray water with a bit of Newfoundland, Iceland, Northern Ireland and/or Norway in the corner(s). Perhaps massively scaled down so that ops that normally took 18 hours to fly could be done in 1-2 hours.

Maybe a Leigh Light.


Bomber Command Night Ops would almost require an entire new sim, since smoke and fire effects would need to be massively reworked, and dozens of new flyable planes and navigation and targeting aids would need be developed, plus new maps to fly over.

Yep. They got evil and corrupt starting in the 90s after the merger. Massive fines for various ethics and environmental violations. Grumman might have been a stand-up company, but Northrop wasn't so nice and Northrop bought Grumman, not the other way round.

My hope is that a talented modder will make high-quality flyable TBF cockpit and crew stations, and then go on to complete the entire run of Grumman fighters, starting with the F3F. Then, they'll finish off by making a really top-of-the-line fully flyable P-61 and the Ryan FR Fireball. This is a wish-list thread!

I'd say that the major nation that get shortest shrift in IL2 is the UK.

There are many major British plane, tank and vehicle types that aren't represented, and the major theaters where the British fought (mostly) don't have maps. Many of the British planes chosen to be in IL2 were only because they were used on the Eastern Front. If it wasn't for Finland, we'd have no early war British planes at all!

Admittedly, IL2 was designed from a Russian point of view and was a healthy correction to all the Battle of Britain and "U.S.-conquers the world" sims, but I'd love to see a sim focused on the Mediterranean Theater from 1941-1943.

Plenty of air forces (Yugoslavia, Vichy France, Rhodesia, South Africa, Greece, Egypt and Canada in addition to the nations already in the game), many obscure battles, many obscure aircraft and vehicles to go along with the famous hardware, gorgeous terrain, often evenly matched forces - almost to the end.

The list of British missing types is impressive. Most medium and all heavy bombers, all seaplanes, all transports. We have just one Mosquito and one Beaufighter models, but the Beau is the Australian variant. If I’m not mistaken, there is Tempest but no Typhoon, no ground attack Hurricanes (IId, IIe and IV), no Griffon Spitfires.
By comparison, Italian types are well represented, with a good choice of fighters and two out of three main bomber types. Regia Aeronautica just miss a transport (like the S82 Marsupiale, used also by Luftwaffe) and a seaplane (like the CANT Z506).

Looking at the British missing list I feel mixed emotions. The dreamer drools thinking at all those new types. The realist thinks that such dream is too good to be true and would be better to concentrate energies on more reachable goals.

B-25C/D (same) was also used by the british (Mitchell Mk.II), and in significant numbers. I think this is the most reachable goal for a flyable british bomber.

True. Although the A-20C was also used in limited numbers by the UK.

Another conversion of an existing plane in the game would be to convert the A-20C to the Havoc III, or even the DB-7/Boston I. As an AI plane, you wouldn't even need different crew stations - just different ordinance and guns.

Correct on almost all counts, although I think that the Mk.IId Hurricane is in the game.

Yes, but there are some frustrating choices for the flyable Italian planes.

A flyable Re.2000/MAGAV Heja would make for a more interesting career as a Hungarian fighter pilot (you start off with the Cr.42 - which sucks on the Eastern Front after 1941, then later transition to the Bf-109G).

A flyable Fiat G.55 would just be fun. We don't exactly need it since we have a flyable MC.205 and the G.55 wasn't built in any great numbers, but if you're a fighter geek, then not having it flyable is like being a kid with his nose pressed up against the candy store window. Same for the Re.2000 and Re.2002.

Yep. The good news is that modeling a single-engined AI plane isn't THAT hard, if you've got the basic artist skills. Maybe some modder will hear our prayers.

If I’m not mistaken, the Italian built Re2000 was the Hèja I, and could already be employed in a Hungarian pilot career. For the Hèja II, a different engine and cowling is almost all is needed, performances being similar.

That’s a typo for the 2001, I suppose… In that case, the Re2001 was built in small numbers (Wiki says 237) and had rather unspectacular performances. The Re2002 was a ground attack variant, reverting to radial engine. It was a sort of “Mini-Sky raider” with low performances and light armament. It was noteworthy mainly for being in operational service on both sides at the same time, being flown by both Luftwaffe and Italian Co-Belligerent Air Force.

The one really outstanding Reggiane was the 2005, but only 32 were built, briefly used against allied bombers. Two B24 shot down is all what they obtained, but they revealed very good high altitude performances. An aesthetically pleasing machine, the Sagittario had – at last – a powerful armament, with two 12,7 mm SAFAT and three 20 mm MG151.

That's great news. I'll expect to see all the single engine models that you are working on in the next patch. ;)

Strange as it is, but the game engine and the general game design are more fitted to recreate either the 'forgotten battles' of WWII or the Jet Era than the large-scale air operations characteristic of the main battle fronts from the mid war. Even the Battle of Britain falls into this latter category.

Il-2 excels where air war was conducted with limited forces and in a skirmishing manner -- in Finland, or in the Med, or even in the early Pacific. BoB is still okay so far as we stick to Dowding's strategy of sending off only a handful of fighters against numerous invaders. But the escalating air war as conducted under Sholto Douglas, or Goering, or Harris, or Spaatz, was basically and fundamentally different.

As to new maps and (mostly British) planes, I would hark back to the forgotten battles concept and concentrate on the Northern convoy route to Murmansk, on the Med, on China, and on Australasia. And, of course, several old cockpits deserve a repaint at least.

A friend tried to make us play a mission with 100 B17's.

He said he tested it off line and it worked fine.

It was going well, until we aproached the bombers and they opened fire upon us. This lagged things a lot, but when they dropped bombs, FPS go to 0.

Still, I won't blame the game, but internet quality, and CPU performance.

Re.2000 was only produced for export (Sweden and Hungary). In Hungary, it was called Héja I and was used as a first line fighter in 1941/42. Later on, Hungary even manufactured it, as Héja II, under licence, but this second version saw service only in secondary roles (the superior Bf 109 F and G became available by then). The Re.2000 was indeed made available in the game as part of the Hungarian plane-set (Cr.42 > Re.2000 > Bf 109).

The funny thing is that the Italian manufacturer delivered the planes for Hungary with an English maintenance manual. It seems that the language of the enemy was the common language between the two allies of Germany. :D

They were translated locally depending on deployment.

Actually, it saw limited service in Italy also. Some examples were adapted to be launched from ships, much like the British Hurricat, the only difference being… the ships: merchantmen for the Hurricat, capital battleship for the Re2000. Having long range, the 2000 Catapultabile was supposed to reach shore after completing its mission.

A dozen "2000 GA" (Grande Autonomia, Long Range) were used from land bases and, apparently, obtained just one confirmed kill, against an RAF Blenheim.

Point taken. Sadly, modeling is beyond my skills, much less all the fiddly stuff that represents 90% of the work.

That just means that mission builders need to design their scenarios wisely, scaling big missions down proportionately or removing planes which aren't vital to the mission.

For example, if you're designing a fighter sweep where a flight of P-51s leave the bombers to attack a German airfield, you don't have to include the rest of the squadron and all the bombers cruising along at 25,000 feet.

Also, don't assume that just because there weren't that many planes in the theater that there couldn't be odd battles where there were dozens of planes in the sky. For example, one mission flown by the Flying Tigers saw 12 P-40s and 15 Buffaloes vs. 25 Ki-43 and 63 Ki-21! Or, during the bombing of Darwin, Australia, the Japanese put 188 aircraft into the air for the first raid!

My choice for "new" maps would be to have some big open sea maps for the Arctic Sea, North Atlantic and Mediterranean. All that would be needed is changing the .ini files for the Coral Sea map to alter longitude, latitude and air temperature, although perhaps water color could be altered to reflect dominant cloud conditions (i.e., steely gray for the North Atlantic in winter).

I'd forgotten that the Re.2000 is flyable. The cockpit gauges are Italian, though. I have no idea if they were in Hungarian for the Heja I, but that's a minor detail.


Yep, typo for Re.2001. Top speed and high altitude performance wasn't all that, but at low levels it was an effective turn fighter and a potential match for the Spitfire Mk.V when competently flown.

As for low production figures, remember that, compared to aircraft production in larger nations, no Italian plane was produced in huge numbers. Italian industry just wasn't up to the task, so many promising designs were never built, or weren't produced in sufficient numbers to make a difference.

More disturbing is what they did produce in large quantities and we've never complained about. These are the plane types (without trainers) they had in larger numbers (>100). Type / role / year entering service / number of aircraft built:

I suspect other air forces would be not much different if scrutinized.

Looking a little more in depth, the situation is not bad as described, at least for what I know and IMHO.

I divided the listed types in four groups. The first one comprises types never or little used in combat, or that had an indifferent career. We can live without them, IMHO.
Breda 88: a total failure.
Caproni 111: retired as combat type before WWII.
Caproni Ca 310: operated in small numbers over Libia.
Caproni Ca309: a minor type, in the same class as the Avro Anson.
Caproni Ca164: similar to the Tiger Moth.
Siai SM84: designed to replace the SM79, it was actually inferior.
Saiman 202: a lightplane used for training and liaison.
IMAM Ro37: an obsolete recon type, little more than fighter fodder.
Caproni Ca133: obsolete by 1940, never used operationally in WWII.
Fiat CR32: in the same class as Gloster Gauntlet. It was even more obsolete than its replacement, the CR42.
To this list, I would add:
Re 2005, a beautiful fighter with very, very short operational career.
Piaggio P108, the only Italian four engine heavy bomber.

The second group lists interesting, but not particularly important types. All of these, IMHO are not a priority by any means.
Reggiane 2001: an unremarkable performing fighter.
IMAM Ro 43: shipborne floatplane. Limited use.
Breda Ba65. An obsolete attack type, employed in Spain and North Africa.
Caproni Ca 311-313-314. An interesting light bomber-recon, mainly employed in secondary roles.
Fiat RS14. That’s an interesting floatplane, but the CANT Z506 was more widely used.
Cant Z501: An interesting flying boat, mainly used in rescue role.
Siai S81: an obsolete bomber by 1940, it was mainly used for night sorties. Relegated to transport role, it saw service in Finland, with Italian crews and Luftwaffe markings up to 1944. A minor, but interesting type.

The third group lists important types really deserving – IMHO – to be included: as you can see, it’s a short list.
Fiat BR20-BR20M. This type would complete the trio of main Italian bombers. It was used also by Japanese Army Air Force.
Cant Z506: a beautiful floatplane, widely and successfully employed.
Siai S82: a big transport, with long range and high load carrying capability. This is an important missing type by any means.

The fourth group lists types already present, flyable or AI:
Fiat G50: flyable.
Macchi 200, 202 and 205: flyable.
SM79: flyable.
Fiat CR42: flyable.
Cantz 1007: AI.
Re2002: AI.
To this list, must be added the Fiat G55, AI.

Conclusion: in my opinion, Regia Aeronautica is well represented, with most major combat types already available. I would love to see the same ratio for RAF.

I'd add one more italian type: Ca-135. As far as I know, hungarians used it against soviets.

I completely agree, but my point was different. Sure we can't have all the planes, sure we don't need those not used, and sure we don't want the obsolate ones. This latter is my concern, the cannon fodder types, together with secondary role aircraft.

Air war is something like a grand opera, with many no-name musicians and backstage workers facilitating the performance, but we only pay attention to the primadonnas. This is okay so far as we play Il-2 as a tactical combat simulation, but if you try to create a dynamic campaign, you'll need some transports, recons, liaison aircrafts, and all those obsolate planes that the given nation used as light bombers to harrass troops, etc.

In this sense only the German and the Soviet plane-set is really well represented. For the rest, there are important functional roles not covered at all. Italy is a good case in point as it is generally well represented, but it still lacks a transport, a recon, an attack plane, and a light bomber.

I don't argue for particular planes. I simply say that this great game would really deserve more than just two basic transport types, and the like. I know that they are only the stage set for the grand opera performance, but still they are important IMHO. :)

I dont agree fully with the German planeset. Bomber force is awfully represented. Also we missing a few other important planes too: Bf-110C4 flyable, Bf-110F, Ju-88C, Me-410 for example.

Here I agree with you. To devote precious development time to secondary types may seem a waste, but we should keep in mind that AI only would be required, without cockpit and crew station. A non-flyable, AI only S82, for example, would spare at least four crew stations and a two-seat cockpit, the smaller Ca313 at least three stations.

What types would be a logical and wise choice? For a tactical recon type, the Ro37 stands out. The Ca313 would fulfil various roles: recon, light bombing, liaison, and coastal patrol. The Breda 65 would be an interesting addition for North Africa. Sure enough, nobody will ever debate about their “uber” or “porked” performances!

What I meant is that although some important individual types might be missing, the main roles are covered, so that if you need a transport, you have one, if you need a recon, you have one, if you need a light bomber, you have one, etc, etc.

Of all the nations involved, French planes are probably the most underrepresented in the game.

Yep, these seem reasonable, together with SM.82. The community and campaign creators have already 'voted' for planes, as can be seen by simply looking around among the hack skins at mission4today and elsewhere: you'll find Tupoljev SB as Ca31X; R-10 as Breda 65, Ju 52 as SM.82, Po-2 as Ro37, Hs-123 as Cr.32 (in the ground attack role). On might say, though, that so far we can substitute missing plane types with existing ones there's no reason to complain... :-P

This has something to do with the fact that France surrendered after 4 weeks, a very short timespan for French planes to see combat on the allied side. Vichy France as an axis country would be a different story (e.g. against Britain). The Free French mostly used British and American equipment. Some French planes like the D.520 were used by Italy, Romania, and Bulgaria, and it would be great indeed to have them (as we do have those used by Finland).

Add an unbelievable variety of types, as the Armée de l’Air was caught in the middle of an almost complete reorganization, with many squadron replacing their obsolete types. They probably fielded five fighter types (Ms406, D.520, Mb151, C.714, Curtiss Hawk) and had many more under development and production, such as the Arsenal Vg33. For bombers, it was even worse: Amiot 143 and 340, Bloch 131, 175 and 210, Breguet 693, Farman F222 and 223, Loire Nieuport LN401, Lioré et Olivier Leo 451, plus Douglas DB7 and Martin Baltimore…:(

Many roles can bes substituted, does not matter if you shoot down a low performance floatplane of the exact type - or if you shoot down a low performing floatplane that looks roughly similar. Agree about some other types, a few more transports to chose from would not hurt.

And while we are at Primadonnas, I'd love to see the G55 as flyable.

Your approach is a dogfight one.
On a campaign approach, someone must fly those secondary types you despise, but were much more important than pure fighter ones. They decided more battles than any fighter, and they represented life and death for fallen fighter pilots.
Try to read the german float plane missions over the black sea, or the storch scouting on the eastern front. Those guys got more balls and skill than any fighter pilot.

BTW, I agree that the french planes are really badly represented. One or two more types won't hurt, more than any british or american type.

And yes, obsolette or failure planes, like the fairey battle, were the only option available, and were what the pilots flyed at the time.

Trying to win a campaign with what there was available, is the real game.

List of french aircrafts in WW2 :

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircr...y-aircraft.asp

Didn't know they used german planes...

There’s an example that demonstrates this concept beyond any doubt. Probably the single, most decisive dive-bomber attack took place at Midway, the battle in which a handful of SBD Dauntless pilots turned the tide of war. But their success was largely determined by VT8 squadron Devastators, hopelessly obsolete torpedo bombers equipped with unsuitable torpedoes. The Devastators were all shot down, but kept busy the Japanese Zeros, leaving their carriers defenceless against SBD. We can say that, acting as decoy, Devastators decided the battle no less than Dauntlesses.

Probably no one will ever want to fly a Devastator pilot career, and a flyable one would be a dispensable luxury, or a curiosity, but the AI only Devastator is, IMHO, one of best additions ever to TD era Il2, showing how much precious a secondary type can be.

And Japanese, like the Ki43. Many of the types listed here entered service after Battle of France was over, in late war years with Vichy or Free French markings, or even after the war. On the contrary, many types that fought in 1940 are not listed.
Armée de l’Air had probably most types in front line service than any of the combatants, a true nightmare for logistics, repairs, pilot training and battle planning, and a contributing factor to France’s defeat.

Many French planes exist as mods, but after the fall of France it's difficult to find a scenario where they actually saw combat. Initially both the Free French Air Force (FAFL) and the Vichy Air Force had French (and American) types, but only Vichy used them extensively, e.g. in Senegal (against the British), then in Syria (against the British), and finally in Morocco (against the western Allies). Most telling is the tally of a French ace pilot:

Anyway, the D.520 would be a useful addition, as several air forces used it in quantities over the years (France, Vichy France, Free France, Italy, Bulgaria).

Didn't say I despise them. And I know it is much much more difficult to get a good result in a slower "death trap" plane. And for a whole war, transports and recon for example play a much greater role as the tactical scenario of IL2 is capable of simulating. And as I see it, if you can do that mission in plane A that is way below the performance envelope of a contemporary fighter, it is possible and not that much different in plane B that has 10% more performance. For a fighter though these ten percent are more important IMHO.
I see that differently:
It was a grave mistake to have own planes in the process of rearming while there was a potential American strike under way - and if doing so, then it was sheer folly to not have a massive CAP present.
The first enabled the enemy to strike the carriers with deadly force even with a few hits, the second made it highly propable for the above to happen.
The existing CAP beeing distracted by the Devastators for me is not as decisive (though it helped) - it would IMHO not have mattered if the CAP were at altitude -as three squads of dive bombers arrived nearly at the same time(some fine piloting on that day by American crews).
And it would likley have been enough to hit every carrier once/twice -Akagi as an example, and later in the war there were other carriers that sunk after one or two hits because the hits started inquenchable avgas fires.

One must also take into account the extremely poor IJN damage control procedures.

During the course of the war the IJN lost many ships that the USN or Royal Navy would have saved.

Also, don't disparage the TBD too much. It performed well at the Battle of the Coral Sea, and when it was introduced it was indeed the very best torpedo bomber on the planet, though that was a time when technology was in a state of rapid advancement when it came to aircraft design, to be sure.

Any disaster is the end result of a long series of mistakes, some minor, some major, some decisive. IMHO, Devastators at Midway were decisive, but even if they only helped, fact remains that secondary planes often play a major role. Il2 is so good, and still better than newer sims, because it already has several of these types. Some new ones will simply add to this richness. According to my taste, of course.

Furio: Don't we have the Cant Z.506? We definitely got an Italian floatplane in the game now.

I'm at work otherwise I could check more quickly.

The Br.20 would be nice and a flyable G.55 and Re.2002 would be bonuses but otherwise the Italian airforce is well represented.

Of course you’re right. Obsolete doesn’t mean useless. Just think about the Swordfish. In comparison, the TBD was more than modern, but the Stringbag was probably the best scoring torpedo bomber of the whole war, and served to the last day in advanced roles such as night anti-submarine warfare.

Good calls. I'd forgotten about them.

BR.20 would be a nice addition for Sino-Japanese and SCW campaigns. It also saw limited use during the battle of Kolhin Gol. But, only the Italians used the BR.20 during WW2, and only in limited numbers. So, maybe not a priority for an Italian WW2 order of battle.

Cant Z506: The Italians operated a lot of floatplanes and the Cant Z506 was one of the best. Later, some were operated by the Germans, and few were used as far away as the Baltic. Definitely needed for a Mediterranean focused anti-shipping campaign, although in appearance and role, it might duplicate the He-115.

Saia S82: A major mid-war transport aircraft, extensively used by the Germans as well as the Italians. But, in appearance and role, it's somewhat similar to the Ju-52.[/QUOTE]