The biplanes are coming!

[FrankJamison]

Ares starting on their next set of WWII releases:

48589



Our sculptors and modellers are busy at work on the future developments of Wings of Glory, and here's the final prototype of one of the "last biplanes" which will be added to the game in the next wave of airplane packs!


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=379631745417500&set=a.250244015022941.60864.218782641502412&type=1&permPage=1




48590



To be released at the same time as the CR.42, the WW2 Wings of Glory will feature the Gloster Gladiator. Here's the final prototype!


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=379658755414799&set=a.250244015022941.60864.218782641502412&type=1&theater

[Doug]

They look very good, I wonder when they will come out?

[Diamondback]

Awright! GLADIATOR! Series 4 proceeding as planned?

Is that first bird a CR.42? IIRC, the original Nexus prototypes were shown at the same time as the Beaus and Bf110s...

[Lord_Ninja]

The first Kite might actually be a Cr.42 used by the Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffe used the Cr.42 as an anti-partisan and night harassment attack aircraft. The main feature that leads me to believe that it is a German Cr.42 is the enlarged oil cooler beneath the cowling (not exactly sure if it is an oil cooler but it is in the general location and shape found on other birds). Also the bombs lend support to this theory. But most German Cr.42s had extended exhausts for night time operations and had the wheel spats removed so this version may be some intermediate design of some sort.

[flyingryno]

very nive looking plane. i want one or two

[Guntruck]

Very nice!

[Carl_Brisgamer]

These look great, well done Ares. The cool thing is both aircraft were used by a number of countries.

Falcos by Italy, Germany, Belgium, Hungary and Sweden; Gladiators by the RAF, RAAF, Belgium, China, Finland, Greece, Norway, South Africa and quite a few other nations.

Lots of scope for repaints.

[grumpybear]

A couple of nice ones

[Kugelblitz]

Wot no Stringbags?

[bsmith13]

I am not usually very excited about WWII biplanes, but those look so good that I could change my mind...

[Naharaht]

Those are nice looking models. Are there any plans to tweak the L manoeuvering deck to produce L1 and L2 versions to reproduce the superiority of the Gladiator in 'head to head' combat between the two, which accounts in books imply?

[Diamondback]

Personally, I'd hope that "L2" would be redesignated as the next open letter, much like the Fok. E.III and M-S N in WGF got moved to a new T deck leaving the E.IV on the old one.

Dave, Stringbags need "torpedo" rules, and WGS has barely gotten into LAND bombing... give 'em time. :) I could see a Stringbag balanced with a Fieseler 167 prototype, though... but before even THAT, we need two Allied dive bombers to balance the Stuka and Val. (SBD Dauntless could do Stuka-style vertical-dive too... hmm, maybe a Shturmovik or a Barracuda for its companion piece and two Axis fighters? Say, the Re2002 and Ki-43?

On the WWII side we really have so few cards to choose from that it shouldn't be long before every card in the game has at least a "basic" sculpt to start from if not an exact one or paint-match.

[BobP]

WOW this is great news. Series 5 WWI this month (on order), next month the bombers and then something else. I CAN'T WAIT. Thanks for this info it is great news to me.

[CappyTom]

I would love to see a Kawanishi E7K (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawanishi_E7K) or called by the allies the Alf.

Thomas

[BobP]

How about a Claude? P-40 could eat that up.

[BobP]

How about a Claude? P-40 could eat that. Check out my album of last biplanes.

[Diamondback]

Actually, they could do a whole set of Transition Era open-cockpit monoplanes around the Rata:
->I-16
->A5M
->P-26 Peashooter (yes, they fought in WWII!)
->something similar if the Germans or Italians had one

And for a set of torpedo bipes...
->Swordfish
->B4Y Jean (yes, there were a few still on IJN carriers early in WWII!)
->Fi167
->not a bipe, but... TBD Devastator

Future torpedo-attack releases would be a problem, as Germany believed in "Stuka Uber Alles" and I'm not sure how many single-engine torpedo bombers the Italians had, since they usually preferred the trimotor SM.79 Sparviero... might pair as:
->B5N Kate/TBF Avenger
->B6N Jill/Fairey Barracuda
->B7A Grace/SB2C Helldiver (late models COULD carry torps)

But we still NEED two Allied dive-bombers first! Could use the Il-2 with the Dauntless, but I think it'd be better saved to pair with the Hs129 as they were the first dedicated tankbusters...

[Carl_Brisgamer]

Allied dive-bomber - Fleet Air Arm Blackburn Skua MkII in service 1939-1941. Shot down first German aircraft by British aircraft in WW2, sank first ever major warship by dive bombing during Norwegian campaign. Saw action in Europe & Med. 4 x 7.7mm MG front (B/A), 1 x 7.7mm MG rear (A/A). Max speed 360kmh, close to Stuka so you could use the I deck.

[Diamondback]

And even better, both Skua and Dauntless could function as "emergency fighters", the latter by chance and the former with dual-role capability as a design feature.

[Naharaht]

There should really be two versions of the Gloster Gladiator, one with a two bladed propellor and one with a three bladed propellor.

[Kaiser]

But the Skua is butt ugly :(

[Baldrick62]

There should really be two versions of the Gloster Gladiator, one with a two bladed propellor and one with a three bladed propellor.

I thought the 3-bladed prop Gladiators were only a Malta 'lash-up'?

From Wiki: 'Faith (serial number N5520), a Gloster Sea Gladiator Mk I, on the ground at an airfield in Malta, in about September 1940. The aircraft has been refitted with a Bristol Mercury engine and three-bladed Hamilton propeller salvaged from a Bristol Blenheim.'

[Diamondback]

But the Skua is butt ugly :(
So's the Stuka... must be that combo of letters. :P

[David Manley]

But the Skua is butt ugly

So is the Stuka, but who cares? :)

[Baldrick62]

And even better, both Skua and Dauntless could function as "emergency fighters", the latter by chance and the former with dual-role capability as a design feature.

And with the Skua, you also get the Roc turret fighter, which I understand sometimes operated in mixed formations with the Skua. The SBD is also the A24 Banshee, as used in the NEI and New Guinea.

[Carl_Brisgamer]

The other Allied dive bomber option is the US built Vultee Vengeance which saw service in Burma and New Guinea against the Japanese in 1943-44, but was rejected for service in Europe and the Med as too vulnerable to enemy fighter attack. It is also a less than attractive aircraft.

[Baldrick62]

Actually, they could do a whole set of Transition Era open-cockpit monoplanes around the Rata:
->I-16
->A5M
->P-26 Peashooter (yes, they fought in WWII!)
->something similar if the Germans or Italians had one

Fiat G.50 or Macchi MC.200? More marking options with the former, including (yet again) the Finns. From Wiki:

Fiat G.50
Performance
Maximum speed: 484 km/h (301 mph) at 5,000 m[54]
Range: 670 km (418 miles)
Service ceiling: 9,835 m (32,258 ft)
Rate of climb: 13.7 m/s (2,694 ft/min)
Wing loading: 148 kg/m² (30 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 230 W/kg (0.14 hp/lb)
Armament
Guns: 2 × 12.7 mm (0.50 in) Breda-SAFAT machine guns

Macchi MC.200
Performance
Maximum speed: 504 km/h (313 mph) at 4,500 m (14,765 ft)
Range: 570 km (354 mi)
Service ceiling: 8,900 m (29,200 ft)
Rate of climb: 15.3 m/s (3,030 ft/min)
Wing loading: 131.7 kg/m² (26.9 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 0.286 kW/kg (0.176 hp/lb)
Armament
2× 12.7 mm (.5 in) Breda-SAFAT machine guns, 370 rpg
Some aircraft were field-modified to carry up to 8× 15 kg (33 lb) or 2× 50, 100, or 150 kg (110, 220, or 330 lb) bombs under the wings

[Diamondback]

Saetta's a little advanced for that mix, where I was looking for open cockpit and fixed gear--I was thinking it'd be good as maybe a balancer for the P-39, or if it might fit as a D.520/Hurricane counterpart in an 'Anti-Series 2' opposite the Allied dive-bombers.

Remaining dive-bombers available...
Allies:
UK Skua/Roc (if sculpt is close enough)
UK Barracuda
US Dauntless/Banshee
US SBC biplane Helldiver (used by Marines and first DB's embarked aboard Hornet)
US SB2C Helldiver
US A-36 Apache (doubtful, it's a single-seater, a variant of the Allison-engine Mustang)
US/FR SB2U Vindicator (thanks, Baldrick!)

Axis:
Ge Hs123 (should pair with SBC nicely)
Ge Ju87G
Jp D4Y Judy
assorted IJAAF types

Personal opinion, the Barracuda and Helldiver should be paired with the B7A Grace and another switch-hitter for a "late-war dive/torp multirole" group. So...
->Skua/Roc + Dauntless/Banshee
->SBC + Hs123
...?

[Baldrick62]

One you've missed - SB2U Vindicator dive bomber (USA and France).

And in terms of 'advanced' performance, the I-16 (which has a retractable undercarriage) eats most things up (particularly the P26):
Performance
Maximum speed: 525 km/h (283 kn, 326 mph) at 3,000 m (9,845 ft)
Range: 700 km (378 nmi, 435 mi (with drop tanks))
Service ceiling: 9,700 m (31,825 ft)
Rate of climb: 14.7 m/s (2,900 ft/min)
Wing loading: 134 kg/m² (27 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 346 W/kg (0.21 hp/lb)
Time to altitude: 5.8 minutes to 5,000 m (16,405 ft)
Armament
2 × fixed forward-firing 7.62 mm (0.30 in) ShKAS machine guns in upper cowling
2 × fixed forward-firing 20 mm (0.79 in) ShVAK cannons in the wings
6 × unguided RS-82 rockets or up to 500 kg (1,102 lb) of bombs

How about a PZL11c or Dewoitine D.500/510 for 'open cockpit, fixed undercarriage'?

[Dan-Sam]

<joke> And I want the Avia B-534k - "k" version had even a cannon in the nose and German Navy tested this type for Graff Zeppelin aircraft carrier! :thumbsup: </joke>

OK, stop dreaming. I am glad for these two birds - they will be good for early war missions.

[csadn]

Future torpedo-attack releases would be a problem, as Germany believed in "Stuka Uber Alles" and I'm not sure how many single-engine torpedo bombers the Italians had, since they usually preferred the trimotor SM.79 Sparviero... might pair as:

IIRC: The FW-190 had a torpedo-carrier variant; the He 111 and Ju 88 also saw use with torpedoes; plus some of the seaplanes (like that He 115 recently found) were used for torp work. I don't recall the Italians ever having a single-engine torp bird, and the books I have on the Italian WW2 air forces do not indicate they had one either. So I'm guessing a "torpedo-bomber" supplement will have to be folded into one or more of the regular-bomber releases, as there's simply not enough torpedo-bombers in the ETO to justify a separate release.

[Baldrick62]

So I'm guessing a "torpedo-bomber" supplement will have to be folded into one or more of the regular-bomber releases, as there's simply not enough torpedo-bombers in the ETO to justify a separate release.

Continuing down this straying thread, for twin-engined torpedo carriers in the ETO/MTO:
UK
Bristol Beaufort (also used in the PTO)
Bristol Beaufighter Mk.VIc/X
Handley Page Hampden
Vickers Warwick Mk.II
Vickers Wellington Mk.XII
Netherlands
Fokker T.VIII
USA
Consolidated PBY Catalina (also PTO)
Lockheed Ventura (not sure whether this should be US or UK as a torpedo bomber, but certainly capable of carrying them - also PTO)
Martin B26 Marauder (ok, PTO only as a torpedo bomber, but...)
USSR
Ilyushin Il-4
Germany
Heinkel He111H-4/6
Heinkel He115
Junkers Ju88A-17
Italy
Caproni Ca.314
Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 (trimotor, but only due to poor Italian-produced aero engine performance)
Savoia-Marchetti SM.84 (same)

And just for completeness
Japan
Mitsubishi G3M Rikko NELL
Mitsubishi G4M BETTY
Mitsubishi Ki-67 Hiryū PEGGY
Yokosuka P1Y Ginga FRANCES

[Kaiser]

As for Gloster Gladiator vs Fiat CR.42 comparison i wait for this (coming December):
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51mZ%2BaU3u7L._SL500_AA300_.jpg

[Naharaht]

That looks like it will be interesting reading, Daniel.

[csadn]

Continuing down this straying thread, for twin-engined torpedo carriers in the ETO/MTO:

And how many of those were also level- or dive-bombers? Never mind how few of the Western units were used for torpedo work, as Western torpedoes (esp. US ones) flat-out *sucked* (IIRC, the US didn't get a reliably-functional torpedo into operation until '44).

So: Not enough to justify a separate ETO-torpedo-bomber supplement.

[Baldrick62]

And how many of those were also level- or dive-bombers? Never mind how few of the Western units were used for torpedo work, as Western torpedoes (esp. US ones) flat-out *sucked* (IIRC, the US didn't get a reliably-functional torpedo into operation until '44).

So: Not enough to justify a separate ETO-torpedo-bomber supplement.

All of them as far as I know, so showed the versitility of the aircraft design.

I think the Fleet Air Arm was fairly happy with aerial torpedos, or did I just imagine Taranto.

[Jager]

All of them as far as I know, so showed the versitility of the aircraft design.

I think the Fleet Air Arm was fairly happy with aerial torpedos, or did I just imagine Taranto.

And don't forget the jammed rudder of the Bismark.
Karl

[BobP]

if they can keep the pace up after the WWII bombers every 3 to 4 months for a new release would be great. That would be a good time between releases even if only 2 planes at a time. At least would keep the planes flowing into our hands.

[BobP]

Kaiser saw you book cover. I am going to Historicon and saw that one of the vendors is OSPREY. Jow many Osprey books can you buy at one time? I have to get my list together. Don't know what would be heavier the books or the money to buy them. Don't take that work they are well worth it.

[Kugelblitz]

And how many of those were also level- or dive-bombers? Never mind how few of the Western units were used for torpedo work, as Western torpedoes (esp. US ones) flat-out *sucked* (IIRC, the US didn't get a reliably-functional torpedo into operation until '44).

So: Not enough to justify a separate ETO-torpedo-bomber supplement.

http://http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1592/ustorp2.htm&date=2009-10-25+09:26:02 September of 1943. Pretty frustrating story, by all accounts. However that was the MK14 torpedo with the Mark 6 exploder. Aerial torpedoes were Mark 13s. Different. That said we had problems with the drop process which had to be irned out and overall had about a 40% success rate.

15. The literature on the Mk.13, Mk.14 and Mk.15 torpedoes focuses strongly on the Mk.14 and says almost nothing about either the Mk.13 or the Mk.15. This is understandable in the case of the Mk.13 since it was a slower torpedo and consequently had a smaller depth error and no major problem with the contact exploder. In the case of the destroyer launched Mk.15, which was a few feet longer than the Mk.14 and carried a larger warhead, but otherwise nearly identical to the Mk.14, I have found no references to unequivocal torpedo failures. This may be because during a destroyer torpedo attack things are too hectic to permit a careful evaluation of torpedo performance.

[Rabbit 3]

I thought the 3-bladed prop Gladiators were only a Malta 'lash-up'?

From Wiki: 'Faith (serial number N5520), a Gloster Sea Gladiator Mk I, on the ground at an airfield in Malta, in about September 1940. The aircraft has been refitted with a Bristol Mercury engine and three-bladed Hamilton propeller salvaged from a Bristol Blenheim.'
A three bladed metal prop was a standard feature of the MkII Gladiator, the MkI having a wooden one with a metal spinner.
A lot of pilots however disliked it and a good percentage of the MkII`s in service `aquired` wooden props, often without the spinner.
This left a lot of metal props lying around so some of the surviving MkI`s ended up with a three blader in front.
The Malta `Glads` were something of a special case since they started out as Sea Gladiators, basically a navalised MkII but were repaired with whatever spares were available.
Not only Blenheim engines but Swordfish components being used.

[BobP]

4934449345

Guys don't confuse the Stuka and Skua. Here are pics of both. I know we all know the Stuka but here is a pic of the Skua.

[Jager]

http://http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1592/ustorp2.htm&date=2009-10-25+09:26:02 September of 1943. Pretty frustrating story, by all accounts. However that was the MK14 torpedo with the Mark 6 exploder. Aerial torpedoes were Mark 13s. Different. That said we had problems with the drop process which had to be irned out and overall had about a 40% success rate.

15. The literature on the Mk.13, Mk.14 and Mk.15 torpedoes focuses strongly on the Mk.14 and says almost nothing about either the Mk.13 or the Mk.15. This is understandable in the case of the Mk.13 since it was a slower torpedo and consequently had a smaller depth error and no major problem with the contact exploder. In the case of the destroyer launched Mk.15, which was a few feet longer than the Mk.14 and carried a larger warhead, but otherwise nearly identical to the Mk.14, I have found no references to unequivocal torpedo failures. This may be because during a destroyer torpedo attack things are too hectic to permit a careful evaluation of torpedo performance.

Link seems to be broken; I see on the expanded version it's at geocities. Isn't that site down?
Any other links for this information?
Karl

[Rabbit 3]

The Skua, as it turned out proved at least to be a reasonably useful plane during the earlier part of the war.
The Roc, on the other hand was a dead loss.
The addition of the turret to what was essentially a nearly obsolete airframe produced a fighter that was too slow even to catch most bombers in service at that time and the turret used up space that was used as fuel tankage on the Skua.
So it didn`t have the range of the other plane it was supposed to work in partnership with.
As the Defiant also showed, the whole `turret fighter` idea was flawed and as I understand it the only kill a Roc ever made was when the plane in question was being used as a ground AA battery!

[Kugelblitz]

Link seems to be broken; I see on the expanded version it's at geocities. Isn't that site down?
Any other links for this information?
Karl

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_WWII.htm details that the MK13 had different problems from the MK14, but nonetheless it became a premier weapon after some r&d time.

[Baldrick62]

as I understand it the only kill a Roc ever made was when the plane in question was being used as a ground AA battery!

'Royal Navy Aces of World War 2' (Osprey, 2007)
What was probably the Roc's sole confirmed victory occurred on 28 May 1940 when an 806 Naval Air Squadron Roc flown by pilot Mid A. G. Day, together with two Blackburn Skuas, intercepted five Junkers Ju 88s which were attacking a convoy off Ostende in Belgium. Flying underneath the Junkers while the Skuas attacked from above, Mid Day's Roc destroyed one Ju 88 before returning safely to Detling.

[Kugelblitz]

'Royal Navy Aces of World War 2' (Osprey, 2007)
What was probably the Roc's sole confirmed victory occurred on 28 May 1940 when an 806 Naval Air Squadron Roc flown by pilot Mid A. G. Day, together with two Blackburn Skuas, intercepted five Junkers Ju 88s which were attacking a convoy off Ostende in Belgium. Flying underneath the Junkers while the Skuas attacked from above, Mid Day's Roc destroyed one Ju 88 before returning safely to Detling.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day...

[csadn]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day...

Unless it's a digital. :)