Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers requiredPandora: Eclipse of Nashira gets release dateCommunity impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!Ageod's To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Survey on Bristol Beaufighter

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Survey on Bristol Beaufighter Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Survey on Bristol Beaufighter - 12/13/2011 6:20:39 PM   
jakla1027

 

Posts: 126
Joined: 7/7/2010
From: Idaho
Status: offline
So i just wanted to take a little survey on other players use, tactice, opinions, of & on the Bristol Beaufighter? I would like to hear back on your opinions on using them in the game. Doesnt matter if you play against the AI or PBEM, i just want to know how this aircraft has worked out for you.

In my current game vs the AI I have one squadron of 16 Aussie Beaufighters based at Darwin & it's September of 1942. They have been based thier for about 2 months now & thus far have 105 kills vs 23 A2A losses. The Beaufighters do very well against Jap bombers but not so well against the Jap fighters. (I expected that) Im planning at hopefully getting at least one more squdron of Beaufighters togather soon & using them in the CAS role. I haven't used them in that role yet but i guess I'll find out

Anywho can anyone else help in my survey?
Thanks as Always
Jason
Post #: 1
RE: Survey on Bristol Beaufighter - 12/13/2011 10:16:16 PM   
vettim89


Posts: 3321
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline
I usually train them up for NavAttack at 100 ft. The make wonderful strafers that appear much soon than the USAAF Attack Bombers


_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to jakla1027)
Post #: 2
RE: Survey on Bristol Beaufighter - 12/13/2011 10:19:43 PM   
nashvillen


Posts: 2740
Joined: 7/3/2006
From: Christiana, TN
Status: offline
They work well for building up my pilots experience in A2A combat.

_____________________________


(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 3
RE: Survey on Bristol Beaufighter - 12/13/2011 11:07:30 PM   
kbfchicago


Posts: 136
Joined: 10/17/2009
Status: offline
Jason,

As it sounds like you've done, I've stretch them across the spectrum of missions, early long range escort until fighters show up with the legs to keep up with the DBs and medium bombers, ground attack, and protection vs IJN deep bomber strikes w/o escorts.  I'd have to open my two old games vs the AI to pull stats but I recall not being either ecstatic or unhappy with the results.  As Ashvillen noted they are Zero bait...so use as escorts on "low" intensity targets or face the consequences.  However on the flip side they are not a bad unit to rotate your guys to build up some skills, especially later in the war.  I recollect harvesting pilots there on a slow rotation - maybe twice a year.  I don't recall substantial success vs Naval targets, could be Vettim89 got better results by focusing exclusive training/use here vs. my more "utility player" approach with the BFs.  I leveraged some of the nose gun B25 units as my twin engine dedicated Naval hunter/killers (not overly impressed).

In my first PBEM, BFs have just arrived for the Aussies, don't have any early intent to change the way I've used them previously...


(in reply to nashvillen)
Post #: 4
RE: Survey on Bristol Beaufighter - 12/14/2011 2:43:26 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 3558
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: nashvillen

They work well for building up my pilots experience in A2A combat.



yea, kinda like the way Nates and Oscars do.....


on a more serious note, as our resident JFB noted they don't do well in A2A I tend to use them exclusively in the anti-naval strafing role. Properly trained they are one of the Allies best strafers.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to nashvillen)
Post #: 5
RE: Survey on Bristol Beaufighter - 12/14/2011 3:14:37 PM   
HistoryGuy


Posts: 80
Joined: 1/7/2009
From: Woodbridge, VA
Status: offline
When playing AI, I used the Beaufighters (soon after they first appear) to defend Cocos Island from air attack (I make it a point to maintain possession of that little piece of land).  Once they build up a respectable score against unescorted Bettys, then I transfer them elsewhere.  The RAF Beaufighters are used for night defense of Diamond Harbor and Calcutta.  They normally dont have much of a chance to shoot anything down as the AI JAAF doesnt attack if there are any Nightfighters flying.  Sometimes I use them as part of a strike package accompanying multi-engine bombers even if there is a possibility they might encounter japanese single engine fighters.  I have also used Beaufighters for low naval attack, but not habitually.  Havent used them in PBEM as I am playing the Japanese. 

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 6
RE: Survey on Bristol Beaufighter - 12/14/2011 8:35:38 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7133
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
A very disappointing aircraft in game terms. Like all other 2Es it just gets beat up by any Japanese single E fighters. And with just two 250 lb bombs does not carry much of an offensive punch. Ok for strafing but lets face it, in AE that done not happen much anyways. I have a lot of the torpedo version but my opponent never ventures into range. Some use it for long range escort but the replacement rate is too low for that. What should be a tough brutal aircraft is kind of a ****weight...

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to HistoryGuy)
Post #: 7
RE: Survey on Bristol Beaufighter - 12/14/2011 8:49:47 PM   
soticrandy

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 7/19/2011
From: Denver, CO
Status: offline
Used it very well at 100' naval attacks and it does pretty well against unescorted bombers. 

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 8
RE: Survey on Bristol Beaufighter - 12/14/2011 10:06:20 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 2021
Joined: 6/3/2006
Status: offline
Its range is the only feature to exploit. Put it where the Japs don't have fighters...

(in reply to soticrandy)
Post #: 9
RE: Survey on Bristol Beaufighter - 12/15/2011 2:14:25 PM   
hbrsvl

 

Posts: 1117
Joined: 10/2/2002
Status: offline
jakla1027- Here's my 2 cents worth. I like to use them as LRCAP on my ships moving between Cairns/Cooktown and Port Moresby/Milne Bay.

There the only VF with "legs" early on. Hugh Browne

(in reply to jakla1027)
Post #: 10
RE: Survey on Bristol Beaufighter - 12/15/2011 9:47:01 PM   
jakla1027

 

Posts: 126
Joined: 7/7/2010
From: Idaho
Status: offline
Hey thanks for the feedback,

I look to be using them in about the same role as everyone else here. However, I may have to try using them in the LRCAP & escort missions. That has never even crossed my mind to try using them in those two roles. That should work well as a stop gap measure for a few more weeks until i get some P-38G's coming into service to fill the long range mission needs. I have 4 Squadrons of B-24D's at Melbourne right now training up, so i could start rebasing them within range of Rabual and start conducting limited daylight raids with Beauforts acting as escorts. I may take some loses, but it'll gain combat experiance a lot fast than training will. If i could lanch one or two raids a week against Rabual, thats a start i guess.

Well thanks for the input guys
Jason

(in reply to hbrsvl)
Post #: 11
RE: Survey on Bristol Beaufighter - 12/19/2011 9:13:01 AM   
jakla1027

 

Posts: 126
Joined: 7/7/2010
From: Idaho
Status: offline
Well Guys just thought I'd post this. Same Beaufighter Squadron that was based at Darwin when I started this Thread, Now thier over the 300 kill mark, all achieved with the Beaufighter! I believe/feel that the 300 Kill Mark is a great accomplishment, for the Squadron, Pilots, & Aircraft involed in this milestone (More so before mid-late 1943 i believe) Not bad all things considered I'd say This warbird is winning a spot on the starting line up for my 1942 team!

Some stats outside the screen shot
Pilots & thier kills flying JUST! the Beaufighter:
3 with 20+ kills (22,24,25)
4 with between 15-17 Kills
5 with between 10-14 Kills
The rest all have 10 or fewer




Attachment (1)

(in reply to jakla1027)
Post #: 12
RE: Survey on Bristol Beaufighter - 12/19/2011 11:33:58 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12264
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Its range is the only feature to exploit. Put it where the Japs don't have fighters...



the problem with that is that if the enemy doesn´t have fighters somewhere I also don´t need escorts.

_____________________________


(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 13
RE: Survey on Bristol Beaufighter - 12/19/2011 3:06:06 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7133
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Its range is the only feature to exploit. Put it where the Japs don't have fighters...





the problem with that is that if the enemy doesn´t have fighters somewhere I also don´t need escorts.


Yeah, why send a beaufeather to do what a B25D1 can do better,


< Message edited by crsutton -- 12/19/2011 3:08:04 PM >


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 14
RE: Survey on Bristol Beaufighter - 12/20/2011 2:44:47 AM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
The blenheim, beaufort and beaufighter and hudson were part of the series of "cannon fodder" category planes built by the RAF
(fairey fulmar fits this category too)

RAF was not going to allow any production lines to close during wartime, so long as they had jigs and the engines
(those small radials were not used by anything important), they built a lot of planes that were not very good but
just to fill the ranks

so ask the questions: is it better to have some beaufighters, or to have nothing?

personally i think it was stupid (US is sending aluminum to support the RAF air industry, running the gauntlet of
german submarines), but a lot more effective than the italian way

< Message edited by Commander Stormwolf -- 12/20/2011 2:50:12 AM >


_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 15
RE: Survey on Bristol Beaufighter - 12/20/2011 3:01:07 AM   
USS Henrico

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 8/2/2009
From: Charlottesville, VA
Status: offline
I use the Beaufighter extensively in the strafing role. As has been pointed out the naval strafing opportunities can be somewhat limited, but the ground attack opportunities are not. They're best used against targets which recon suggests don't have a lot of anticraft guns to shoot back, with real fighters overhead to provide cover against the inevitable Zeros/Tojos.

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 16
RE: Survey on Bristol Beaufighter - 12/20/2011 4:45:12 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8251
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
They are pretty effective when sweeping against Rufes. 

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to USS Henrico)
Post #: 17
RE: Survey on Bristol Beaufighter - 12/20/2011 10:17:54 PM   
msieving1


Posts: 451
Joined: 3/23/2007
From: Missouri
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

The blenheim, beaufort and beaufighter and hudson were part of the series of "cannon fodder" category planes built by the RAF
(fairey fulmar fits this category too)

RAF was not going to allow any production lines to close during wartime, so long as they had jigs and the engines
(those small radials were not used by anything important), they built a lot of planes that were not very good but
just to fill the ranks

so ask the questions: is it better to have some beaufighters, or to have nothing?

personally i think it was stupid (US is sending aluminum to support the RAF air industry, running the gauntlet of
german submarines), but a lot more effective than the italian way


I think there are some misconceptions here. The Blenheim, Beaufort, and Hudson were all discontinued during the war as they were replaced by better options. Also, the Hudson was not a British aircraft, though it was used by the RAF, FAA, and RAAF. It was a US aircraft, built by Lockheed.

Most of the Beauforts and Beaufighters used in the Pacific were Australian built. They were the most sophisticated aircraft Australia was capable of building during the war.

The Beaufort and Beaufighter did not use "small radials". The Australian built Beauforts used the P&W R1830, the same engine used in the F4F and B-24. Beaufighters used the Bristol Hercules, which similar to the Wright R2600 (both were two row 14 cylinder radials capable of around 1,600 - 1,700 hp) and was also used by the Halifax and Wellington bombers. For a time, when heavy bombers had priority on the Hercules, Beaufighters were built with Merlin engines, though those version were only used in Europe.

The Beaufighter was one of the best maritime strike aircraft of the war. Using it as an air superiority fighter is pointless; it's not designed to take on fighters. But it was very effective in low altitude attacks on shipping. Operating from England and the Mediterranean, it was a very good torpedo bomber, though I don't think the RAAF used that capability much.


(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 18
RE: Survey on Bristol Beaufighter - 12/20/2011 11:48:00 PM   
Reg


Posts: 2184
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: Victoria, Australia
Status: offline

In RAAF service the Beaufighter was classified as Long Range fighter. As the short legged P-40 and Spitfire were the only other fighters available to the RAAF to cover the wide expanses of the Pacific it was an appropriate choice.

There are numerous examples of the Beaufighter being used as a fighter (flying LRCAP over the HMAS Castlemaine in the Timor sea is a well known example) and they did not carry ANY ordinance until 1944 when rockets were introduced which complemented their intended LR Fighter role. This was the reason we lobbied and got the RAAF aircraft changed from a level (torpedo) bomber back in the UV days. Despite several RAAF expansion plans drafted over the course of the war, only two LR Fighter squadrons were ever planned to operate the type until 1945 when three more squadrons were formed for the final push.

The inability to tangle with Zeros was well known at the time and standard operating procedure was to dive to the deck and open up the throttles after which the Zeros would be left far behind. There were examples of Beaufighters turning on their pursuers but this was the exception and was more a case of being cornered or "get off my tail" rather than a serious case of engaging in a dogfight and was usually followed by a rapid separation.

The P&W R1830 engine was made in Australia but the Bristol Hercules was imported from Britain though one Beaufighter was converted to the P&W engine (a very strange looking animal) as a prototype in case supply was ever interrupted. The Hercules was similar in spec to the Wright R2600 but was a very different beast as it was a sleeve valve engine and was more technically more advanced that the American designs.

Stormwolf, I think you are looking at things from a gamers perspective (of the ultimate weapon) rather than appreciating the historical situation that AE is trying to represent. There were many valid reasons they did things the way they did no matter how sub-optimal it looks with 70 years of hindsight.




_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has introduced a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to msieving1)
Post #: 19
RE: Survey on Bristol Beaufighter - 12/21/2011 12:13:40 AM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
F4F and B-24 engines are small radials (1200 hp)
Pratt and whitney double wasp is a big radial (2000 hp)

RAF was out to pump out quantity.
remember that aluminum did not come from britain but a large chunk was imported from the USA
(some sunk by submaries)

In war, decisions are made, some good and some bad

It was bad to make these aircraft because there were better desgins available (Mosquito?)
It was good to make these aircraft because the production lines for the good designs could be run in parallel

(better Australia is making beaufighters than making wirraways )

_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to jakla1027)
Post #: 20
RE: Survey on Bristol Beaufighter - 12/21/2011 3:36:32 PM   
USS America


Posts: 16111
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Apex, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: msieving1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

The blenheim, beaufort and beaufighter and hudson were part of the series of "cannon fodder" category planes built by the RAF
(fairey fulmar fits this category too)

RAF was not going to allow any production lines to close during wartime, so long as they had jigs and the engines
(those small radials were not used by anything important), they built a lot of planes that were not very good but
just to fill the ranks

so ask the questions: is it better to have some beaufighters, or to have nothing?

personally i think it was stupid (US is sending aluminum to support the RAF air industry, running the gauntlet of
german submarines), but a lot more effective than the italian way


I think there are some misconceptions here. The Blenheim, Beaufort, and Hudson were all discontinued during the war as they were replaced by better options. Also, the Hudson was not a British aircraft, though it was used by the RAF, FAA, and RAAF. It was a US aircraft, built by Lockheed.

Most of the Beauforts and Beaufighters used in the Pacific were Australian built. They were the most sophisticated aircraft Australia was capable of building during the war.

The Beaufort and Beaufighter did not use "small radials". The Australian built Beauforts used the P&W R1830, the same engine used in the F4F and B-24. Beaufighters used the Bristol Hercules, which similar to the Wright R2600 (both were two row 14 cylinder radials capable of around 1,600 - 1,700 hp) and was also used by the Halifax and Wellington bombers. For a time, when heavy bombers had priority on the Hercules, Beaufighters were built with Merlin engines, though those version were only used in Europe.

The Beaufighter was one of the best maritime strike aircraft of the war. Using it as an air superiority fighter is pointless; it's not designed to take on fighters. But it was very effective in low altitude attacks on shipping. Operating from England and the Mediterranean, it was a very good torpedo bomber, though I don't think the RAAF used that capability much.




Aw, msieving1, you're not gonna let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good argument, now are you?

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to msieving1)
Post #: 21
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Survey on Bristol Beaufighter Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.092