What do you think/hope the next 4 new aircraft will be?

[United]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
but because most of the 24's flew out of italy, and the 17's flew out of England the 17 got all the glory because England is where all the top war correspondents went so it got the bulk of the publicity

Actually, 24s flew in just about every theatre.  In fact, 24s and 17s flew alongside each other on many missions from England.  Not only did they serve in Italy and England, they also served in N Africa, The pacific, and in anti-submarine roles in the North Atlantic.  It was widely used and would be a great addition to AHII.

And you are correct, just over 18,000 B-24 models were made, almost 10,000 more than B-17s.

[Sikboy]

Coming from an SEA/CT point of view:

I would just like to take a moment to reiterate my case that the single most important plane to the Pacific planeset is a mid-late war strike plane for the Japanese.

We can play out a few early and mid war battles with what we have, especially when we sub the Ju-88 for the Betty (frankly I feel this is an advantage for the IJN, as the Ju-88 can carry a decent bombload, whereas the Betty cant. Also betties spontaniously combust when sighted by the enemy... hmmm why did the betties die?) But the Japanese are unable to launch a Carrier assualt once the F6Fs, F4Us and FM2s start showing up.

Right now, when we try to put together anything after 1942-43 we end up putting people in Kates, and praying that they get within visual range of the enemy before being massacred to a man. The later war strike planes had significant increases in survivability, by being much faster (the D4Y being about 100 mph faster than the D3A1 we have, the difference between the Grace and Kate is even greater!)

One of these aircraft will provide a counter-balance to the TBM that we have, and will give the IJN a fighting chance of actually sinking a CV.

This is why, if I could have any single plane, I would ask for the D4Y "Judy Judy Judy"

-Sik

[Karnak]

Originally posted by United
And you are correct, just over 18,000 B-24 models were made, almost 10,000 more than B-17s.

Just over 18,000 is not almost 10,000 more than the 12,731 B-17s built.

A quick google search produced a web site that claimed the B-17 dropped 640,000 tons of bombs in Europe, compared with 452,000 tons dropped by B-24s and 436,000 tons dropped by other U.S. aircraft.  I can't vouch for that, but it sounds reasonable given that the B-17 saw much heaver use do to the fact that it was more survivable.  Both the USAAF and Luftwaffe came to that conclusion.

[Delirium]

I"m dreading a Ki-84, it will replace the Nik, the La7, and the Spit9 in one blow.

Its bad enough to see those 3 aircraft all the time, but seeing one replace it is even worse.

[715]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Edbert,

BTW - Does anyone know of a variant to the T34/76 that had an MG that could be used on Aircraft? That shortcoming could be the only gameplay advantage to introducing the Sherman.

- SEAGOON

I've got two books on T34s and neither has a single picture of any T34 with any kind of AA gun (except a post war Syrian one).

BTW- the T34-85 would not be a simple addition to a T34-76 in the game: although the hull is identical the turret is completely different.

[United]

Originally posted by Karnak
Just over 18,000 is not almost 10,000 more than the 12,731 B-17s built.

Ooops, checked my source and it said that only 8,860 B-17Gs were built, not every model.  My mistake.

But karnak, with the amounts of bombs dropped, you didnt include the Pacific, where the B-24 was utilized most.  I couldnt find any numbers, but im sure there were many more thousands of pounds of bombs dropped in the Pacific.

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by Pyro
A bomber, a fighter, and a tank.

Geez pyro four new additions!


but in that case realistically:

Me-410
B-25C
Firefly

or:

Ki-84
Pe-2
T-34

 Tronsky

[Karnak]

Originally posted by United
karnak, with the amounts of bombs dropped, you didnt include the Pacific, where the B-24 was utilized most.  I couldnt find any numbers, but im sure there were many more thousands of pounds of bombs dropped in the Pacific.

No I didn't.  As stated, that was a quicky search.  It also didn't include the Med. Theater.

But be serious, until we got in range of Japan itself heavy bombers didn't play a major role in the Pacific, and then it was the B-29A that did it.


Now, I've no problem with the B-24 and hope it is added someday.  I don't think it is urgently needed, at least not the B-24J.  What is needed for a USAAF heavy bomber is an earlier heavy bomber, be that a B-17E or B-24D.  The fact of the matter is that there are far larger holes in the planeset than the B-24J when it comes to scenarios.  We have no VVS or Regia Aeronautica bombers at all and only one early war Luftwaffe bomber.  The early war Allied bomber is too fast for the early war Axis fighters to intercept.  The Japanese bomber is late war and totally overmatches the early Allied fighters when used in place of an early war Japanese bomber.

I'd like to see the following before duplicate efforts like the B-24J (same role as the B-17G), Halifax Mk II (same role as the Lancaster Mk III) or He111H-16 (same role as the Ju88A-4) are added:

Early war Allied bomber:  Wellington Mk III or B-25C Mitchell
Earlier USAAF heavy bomber: B-17E Flying Fortress or B-24D Liberator
Early war Japanese bomber: G4M2 "Betty"
Late war Luftwaffe bomber: Ju188A-2 or Do217E-2
Russian bombers:  Pe-2 (early war VVS bomber), Pe-2FT (mid-war VVS bomber) and Pe-2B (late war VVS bomber)
Italian bomber: Cant Z.1007 Alcione or Savoia-Marchetti S.M.79-II Sparviero



What I objected to in the pro-B-24 posts was the talking up of the B-24 as though it were the main US bomber.  It wasn't.  It was produced in huge numbers and used for many vital, but not flashy, roles (anti sub patrols over the Atlantic for example), but the B-17 carried the main burden of the USAAF effort over Europe.

[United]

I hate to admit it, but yes the B-24 was not the mainly used bomber by the USAAF, and yes, it wouldnt do much to fill in the gaps in the planesets.  I do think we need the HE-111 and Betty, maybe the Wellington before the B-24, but I can still hope, right?

But be serious, until we got in range of Japan itself heavy bombers didn't play a major role in the Pacific, and then it was the B-29A that did it.

Now, I will, OTOH, argue this point with you.  I have many personal stories of heavy bombers being utilized in the Pacific before we were in reach of Japan.  Now, it may not have been a very major role, but they did serve a very significant role, even though they may not have done much damage to the Japanese.

[Simaril]

Originally posted by Karnak
Now, I've no problem with the B-24 and hope it is added someday.  I don't think it is urgently needed, at least not the B-24J.  What is needed for a USAAF heavy bomber is an earlier heavy bomber, be that a B-17E or B-24D.  The fact of the matter is that there are far larger holes in the planeset than the B-24J when it comes to scenarios.  We have no VVS or Regia Aeronautica bombers at all and only one early war Luftwaffe bomber.  The early war Allied bomber is too fast for the early war Axis fighters to intercept.  The Japanese bomber is late war and totally overmatches the early Allied fighters when used in place of an early war Japanese bomber.

I'd like to see the following before duplicate efforts like the B-24J (same role as the B-17G), Halifax Mk II (same role as the Lancaster Mk III) or He111H-16 (same role as the Ju88A-4) are added:

Early war Allied bomber:  Wellington Mk III or B-25C Mitchell
Earlier USAAF heavy bomber: B-17E Flying Fortress or B-24D Liberator
Early war Japanese bomber: G4M2 "Betty"
Late war Luftwaffe bomber: Ju188A-2 or Do217E-2
Russian bombers:  Pe-2 (early war VVS bomber), Pe-2FT (mid-war VVS bomber) and Pe-2B (late war VVS bomber)
Italian bomber: Cant Z.1007 Alcione or Savoia-Marchetti S.M.79-II Sparviero
 

Ditto.

Karnak, masterful work proposing a reasoned position with definite goals! There's plenty to work with in the MA, if your main goal is a particular performance envelope. New planes can of course be used everywhere, but rationally the major benefit will be in rounded planesets for CT and special events.

1) If we're limited to just a couple new craft, we ought to get the ones that give the game experience the MOST boost. The MA has a broad planeset, but 10% of the list probably account for 90% of what's in the MA airspace. I'm strongly in favor of picking the new bomber/fighter pair that help with the limited timespan CT and special event arenas.

2) Going with airframes that have long derivation chains would help ease subsequent modelling, wouldn't it? If so, I vote for one of the Pe-2's, and the T-34/76 or an early Sherman. Or, for variety's sake, how about a 90mm TD --- killer gun but vulnerable chassis. Would make choices in the VH much more interesting....

3) As ground cover makes the GV's tougher to spot, I'd think an attack fighter would be good idea. So, I propose the P-39. Maybe things could be balanced by cutting the effectiveness of anti air cannon vs gv's, but giving full credit to the P-39 attack versions? Most action is at lower alts anyway, so P-39 MIGHT be survivable in the MA too.

[daddog]

Just sent Pyro the numbers. In order of most votes...

Ki-84
P-39
B-24
He-111
P-38 variants
B-25 variants
Sherman

Those with 4 or more
Pe-2
P-38F
G3M
Me-410
Ju-52
Tu-2S
Yak9
T-34
B-29

[Heiliger]

HE-111
HE-219
Sherman
ME-410

[Wotan]

Flyboy,

I missed your post above. I am certainly no expert but here's some info:

The G-14 is mentioned in Mtt meetings minutes as the official name of the G-6/MW50 designation which was used internally by Mtt for G-6 equipped with the MW-50 system previously used on the recce G-6/R2 variant.

The G-10 is described as the evolution of the G-6 using MW-50 (same system as G-6/R2) and the DB605DM.

The G-14 used only the following engines:

DB605AM,
DB605ASM

Neither the DB605A nor the DB605AS were mounted on the G-14, since the main difference from G-6 was the presence of MW-50, which required either the DB605AM or the DB605ASM engine.

The DB605AS(M) used the same supercharger as the DB605D, they were rebuilt using DB605A casing and fitted with the DB603A supercharger. They required the same kind of cowling as the DB605D equipped aircraft. Yet there are some small cowling differences between a G-10 and a G-14/AS, so you can identify one from the other.

The difference between the A and AS in the one hand and the AM and ASM in the other hand is the addition of MW-50. Of course there were other differences such as sparkplugs, timings and other settings etc.

The G-14 was (as the others) produced by Messerschmitt in Regensburg, Erla Maschinenwerke in Leipzig and WNF (Wiener Neustädter Flugzeugwerke).

The minority was built by WNF. Many G-14s built by WNF had their MG 151/20 replaced by a MK 108, which resulted in the designation G-14/U4.

So the majority built by Messerschmitt and Erla kept their MG 151/20.

G-10s were not made from old airframes, they were produced alongside the G-14 as an evolution of the G-6 with DB605D and MW-50 while the G-14 was the evolution of G-6 with DB605AM with MW-50.

It is true some of the first airframes used for the G-10 were from G-6 as they were available, or from airframes planned for mounting the DB605AM (G-14) in case no DB605AM were available. Hence the twin data plate found on some G-10.

Basically a G-14 would be just adding mw50 to our G-6.

[Fruda]

I'd like to see the following:


Pe-2 --- A very nice light bomber

MiG-3 --- One of the best fighters at high altitude

T-34/76 --- Best tank of the war, in my opinion


So, they're all Russian machines. Come on, there's not enough Russkie muscle in AH!

[Tails]

Me-410 or P-61
B-25 (Preferably with the oddball loadouts as options. Like nose-mount cannons, parachute retarded bombs, etc.)
As for tanks...uh...something shiney! (Seriously, I never drive tanks)