| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
AHF Gold-Rated Trader
Posts: 196
|
|
|
Post subject: Card Request: De Havilland Mosquito
|
 |
|
I looked through the custom card section and saw that she was'nt there, so I decided to make this..
The wooden wonder was initiallly concieved to be a fast, unarmed bomber. through later upgrades and different views of how this plane could be utilised, the mosquito became one of the premiers "jack of all trades" planes in the war.
Stats for the plane:
Bomber only: summer 1941
Fighter bomber variant: Dec. 1942
378 mph (608 km/h) Max speed
Range: 1,400 miles (2,253 km)
Armamament: bomber only: 4x 250LB bombs
Fighter/Bomber: 4x 500LB bombs, 4x 20mm Hispano cannon, 4x browning .303 MG
Wing span 16.51m
Length 12.43m
Height 4.65m
Wing Area 42.18m2
What I am proposing is two seperate cards, one for the bomber only version with a 1941 year date, and a Fighter bomber version with a 1943 start date. The bomber will be real easy, the fighter bomber, probably not so much. Will go well with the english in WAS, especially the B.IV since they have no early war bomber. Fighter bomber version is better than bearufighter.
Here we go!!
De Havilland mosquito B.IV
Year 1941
Points: 10
Bombs: 8 (4x 250 lb bombs)
Armor:5 Vital:8 HP:1
SA: Land Based
Vital I think should be here due to tons of accounts of mosquitos coming back full of holes and still flying.
De Havilland Mosquito FB. MK VI
Year: 1943
Points: 14
MG: 3
AA: 8
Bombs: 12 (4x 500LB bombs)
DC: 2 (was credited with sinking or helping to sink 8 U-boats over the course of the war. Don't know if it was from DC or rockets though)
Armor: 5 Vital Armor: 8, HP: 1
SA: Mission Selection (can only DC as a bomber)
SA: Robust Fighter-- If this unit is a fighter this turn, it gets +1 to its armor value.
SA: Land Based
Let the discussion begin!!!
_________________
GTL + 32 (Old boards)
GTL + 5 (New Boards)
Winner of the First AAM land Olympics representing the U.K. (From Old Boards)
Polish Army review, Chinese Army review.
 |
|
 Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:58 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9280
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
This should have the same stats as Pe2. They are identical in WAS terms.
Only notice that 4x500 lb (about 700 kg?) is much lower than bomb 12.
It wasn't unusually robust.
_________________
 
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Sat Oct 24, 2009 11:37 pm |
|
|
AHF Gold-Rated Trader
Posts: 196
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
For the 1943 fighter bomber--
Neural, actually 2000 pounds is 903.184 kilograms.
700 kilograms is only 1540 pounds. your estimate is just a little off. Bomb should be decently higher than the Pe-2
PE-2 700KG-- 1540 pounds = bomb 11
Mosquito 903.184 KG, 2000LB = bomb 12 OR 13 even
For robust issue, I just put that name in for a new SA, I know that the mosquito was able to take terrific damage and still fly, a tribute to British wood engineering 
The early war 1941 bomber only could carry only 1000LB of bombs, hence bomb 8.
_________________
GTL + 32 (Old boards)
GTL + 5 (New Boards)
Winner of the First AAM land Olympics representing the U.K. (From Old Boards)
Polish Army review, Chinese Army review.
|
|
| Sun Oct 25, 2009 12:08 am |
|
|
Nothing but Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash.
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
If you really want a robust fighter type SA, why not borrow from either Martlet or A6M5? It doesn't really seem like it should be more robust in one role over another does it?
_________________
 |
|
| Sun Oct 25, 2009 12:53 am |
|
|
AHF Gold-Rated Trader
Posts: 196
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Swarbs, you mean the Rugged Sa right? if so, that could work.
_________________
GTL + 32 (Old boards)
GTL + 5 (New Boards)
Winner of the First AAM land Olympics representing the U.K. (From Old Boards)
Polish Army review, Chinese Army review.
|
|
| Sun Oct 25, 2009 1:09 am |
|
|
Posts: 543
|
|
|
| Sun Oct 25, 2009 4:54 am |
|
|
35M3LSC
Posts: 47
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Simple reason the Mosquito does not get Rugged:
It was just as tough to shoot down by flak or fighter.
From accounts of it flying to Norway to supply select personnel there, to the U-boat strikes mentioned previously, it was more versatile than the Helldiver, and cheaper/easier to repair, manufacture and maintain.
I rather like the stats, but I don't know if there needs to be two. I would be happy with just the 1943 version. Besides, if RN players begin using this, maybe we can stop complaining about the Halifax's impotent nature.
_________________
The tactics...no, amateurs discuss tactics,.... Professional soldiers study logistics. - Tom Clancy, Red Storm Rising
Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it....those who repeat it studiously are gamers. |
|
| Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:01 am |
|
|
Posts: 1754
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| I think rugged would be ruled out because i've never seen anything built out of plywood and balsa that was ever considered "rugged" |
|
| Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:04 am |
|
|
Posts: 955
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rengokuy wrote: | | I think rugged would be ruled out because i've never seen anything built out of plywood and balsa that was ever considered "rugged" |
Habbakuk?
Babs out! |
|
| Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:57 am |
|
|
AHF Gold-Rated Trader
Posts: 196
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Logres, There really needs to be two for one very important reason:
the English Don't have an early war bomber. Swordfish don't count, and the Bearufighter just dosen't cut it in that role. The 1941 bomber only version that I came up with is very simple and has the same bomb value as a barracuda, but can't be used every turn. the 1943 fighter/bomber will stop halifax complaining, in my opinion, and will give the english a very versitile, albeit expensive plane.
_________________
GTL + 32 (Old boards)
GTL + 5 (New Boards)
Winner of the First AAM land Olympics representing the U.K. (From Old Boards)
Polish Army review, Chinese Army review.
|
|
| Sun Oct 25, 2009 3:41 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9280
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
The Pe-2 could take 1,600 kg. I believe we gave it bomb 11.
The helldiver could take about 1,100 I think and got bomb 11 because it's a dive bomber (dive brakes and all).
We have guidelines for bomb stats. Check the stickies. I think the mossie would get about bomb 8-9.
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Sun Oct 25, 2009 3:49 pm |
|
|
AHF Gold-Rated Trader
Posts: 196
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
actually, it could be bomb 9 or 10. It is much higher than the barracuda at bomb 8 and right in between the:
grace: 800KG--bomb 9 and Dauntless 1000KG--Bomb 10.
Since it is closer to the dauntless by 4 KG, I will campaign for bomb 10.
_________________
GTL + 32 (Old boards)
GTL + 5 (New Boards)
Winner of the First AAM land Olympics representing the U.K. (From Old Boards)
Polish Army review, Chinese Army review.
|
|
| Sun Oct 25, 2009 4:01 pm |
|
|
Nothing but Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash.
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
But was it as effective a dive-bomber? Wouldn't a Mosquito be more of a level bomber, and therefor less accurate?
_________________
|
|
| Sun Oct 25, 2009 4:26 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9280
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
It would dive bomb, but not in the same accurate (almost vertical) angle of a Stuka or a Val. I would say that it's similar to a Ju88 in that aspect. Now, why the 88 got only 8 for 3,000 kg, I have no idea. It wasn't a level bomber like the Halifax.
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:09 pm |
|
|
Posts: 1754
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I can't find any mention of Dive breaks or video clips of a Diving Mosquito. All I can actually find are pieced together British documantaries.......(that constantly say "only lost 11 aircraft in their first 1000 sorties again and again)
The best it looks it they are level bombers. Stating bomb drop heights of over 6 miles.
As well as torpdo variants....I'd assume it really depended what kind of payload they carrierd.
Heavy bobms = level bombing
Light bombs = low level bombing
torp - surface skim
| babs wrote: | | Rengokuy wrote: | | I think rugged would be ruled out because i've never seen anything built out of plywood and balsa that was ever considered "rugged" |
Habbakuk?
Babs out! |
if you're trying to prove a point then prove it.
Pykrete considerably stronger than plywood and Balsa. |
|
| Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:35 pm |
|
|
AHF Gold-Rated Trader
Posts: 196
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
So probably a bomb 9 then? has to be a little higher than Barracuda, since it could carry more of a bomb load.
NO HIGH LEVEL BOMBER SA, that just screws the plane!!
since the bomb value has been lowered, we should recost it to 12, maybe thirteen.
_________________
GTL + 32 (Old boards)
GTL + 5 (New Boards)
Winner of the First AAM land Olympics representing the U.K. (From Old Boards)
Polish Army review, Chinese Army review.
|
|
| Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:43 pm |
|
|
Nothing but Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash.
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I think 9 makes sense enough.
_________________
|
|
| Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:09 am |
|
|
AHF Gold-Rated Trader
Posts: 196
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
What we have so far for the 1943 fighter/bomber
Year: 1943
Points: 12 or 13
MG: 3
AA:8
Bomb:9
DC:2
Armor:5 Vital Armor:8 HP:1
Mission Selection SA
Land Based SA
_________________
GTL + 32 (Old boards)
GTL + 5 (New Boards)
Winner of the First AAM land Olympics representing the U.K. (From Old Boards)
Polish Army review, Chinese Army review.
|
|
| Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:42 am |
|
|
Posts: 805
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
U-boats were sunk with rockets (and the occasional massive cannon.)
_________________
 |
|
| Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:52 am |
|
|
SOCCEROO FEVER
Posts: 6808
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Don't forget the Aussie Mozzie
_________________
 |
|
| Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:45 am |
|
|
|
