B-24: Why we should have it

[Citabria]

yeah CT blah I am talking main arena.

when people are going to fly a bomber in the main arena they wont be often picking those crappy axis bombers. it just isnt gonna happen.

they are gonna pick a bomber with a lot of bombs a lot of guns and a lot of speed.

now thats the b17 and lancaster and sometimes b26 in the MA

now who is going to compete with those three for flight time from the dweeb buff masses?


saying the B-24 is like the b17 is like saying the p51 is like the p47

it dosnt float.

[Arlo]

It doesn't outclass the 17 enough to make a good MA argument. It doesn't fill the needs of the CT or SEA enough to warrant it's being modeled ahead of other more needed planes.

I like it too but I'd give my eye teeth to see greater latitude when it comes to scenario design options. The planeset, as is, hampers that. The B-24 won't really address it.

[Karnak]

Citabria,

I think that a Ju188A-2 or He177A-5 would see lots of use.  Possibly as much as the B-24, and without taking most of it's users from the B-17G demographic.

There are many Luftwaffe fans who would like a good German bomber and would use it.  Both the Ju188A-2 and He177A-5 offer good payloads, good defensive guns and good speed.  In other words both are good MA bombers.

[McGuinn]

RE: Ju188A-2 or He177A-5

Yes Karnak,
The JU188A-2 would be a lovely plane for the Axis side; as well as the He177A-5. I could see many uses in the MA for these types of aircraft. I pulled out the old WW2 plane book and here are the specs.

Heinkel He. 177 A-5/R6

Engine HP: 2,700 each
317mph at sea level
up to 6,000 pounds of bombs with one 20mm cannon and 5 .303 machine gunds.

Sounds nice:D

[Karnak]

He177A-5/R2

Defensive armament:

one 7.9mm MG81J machine-gun in glazed nose; one 20mm MG151 in front ventral gondola; two 7.9mm MG81 in rear ventral gondola; two 13mm MG131 in dorsal barbette; one 13mm MG131 in dorsal turret; one 20mm MG151 in tail

Bombload:

6,000kg (13,200lbs) internal, rarely carried.


Ju188A-2

Defensive armament:

one 20mm MG151 in nose; one 20mm MG151 in dorsal turret; one 13mm MG131 manually aimed at rear dorsal position; one 13mm MG131 or two 7.9mm MG81s manually aimed at rear ventral position

Bombload:

3,000kg (6,641lbs) internally, or two 1,000kg (2,200lbs) torpedoes under inner wings

[Easyscor]

The B24 would see far more use in the CT and the MA as Citabria said and it doesn't matter which bomber you use in the BoB because you don't have a terrain editor to create the proper targets. He111 or Ju88, it only matters to the fighter pilots who whats to shoot them down.

Don't get me wrong, we need Axis and Russian bombers for events and the CT and the He111 should be at the top of that list but of the immediate choices, the B24 would see the most use by far while the He111 would be an instant hanger queen and it will be hard to find pilots for it in special events.

[SELECTOR]

while the b24 would make a great addition to the game , i feel it is of similar (not same) specs as the b17.. the same reason i think the halifax wont make an apperence because of it similarity to the lancaster..
Personaly i would like to see some bombers from the other countries from WW2.. for instance and italian bomber, or even a russian..

if a b24 is to be added i would like to see the privateer version..

[-ammo-]

We can bring up performance figures of the varying AC till we are blue in the face.  The fact is the B-24 Liberator was a HUGE part of bombing campain(s) in WW2.  In a game like AH, it has a placeholder and HTC will need to add it to fill it out.  It doesn't matter that its design is similar to the B-17,  what matters is that it played a monstrous role in WW2 and AH needs it.

I feel the same about a Betty as well.  That AC was used extensively and should be added as well.  Then we can have a "Get Yamamoto!!"  scenario as well as a big fat juicy Japanese target in all the arenas.

[brady]

The Big issue at least for me with a Plane like the B-24, is that it will consume a lot of time for HTC to build it, time that could be spent building 3 or 4 Entirely New Fighter types, or a medieum buf and another Fighter or two, and this would realy help a country like Russia in geting another Bomber which it realy presently has non of in the game, and A viable MA type for Russia woudl be the TU-2, this as an example has been offered up before of course.

 What it boils down to realy is this: If you like the B-24 for personal reasion you can rationalise it easly by say this or that, but it is realy just that a rationalsation. We have all waited for years now to see more depth added to the plane set, and I do hope we all get what we want eventualy, personaly in the short term I hope to see some more depth added to the rest of the planets plane set and not more US stuff,  just Because it is US.

 Arguably Russia played the Bigest part in defeating Germany out of all the Combatants that faced Germany in WW2 yet Russia has one of the smallest plane set's in the game, you can notcreat an early war plane set for Russia in an event or the CT since their are no early war Russian planes of anytype moded at all presently in AH, this is just one area amongst many whear their are some big holes in the plane set.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by -ammo-
The fact is the B-24 Liberator was a HUGE part of bombing campain(s) in WW2.  In a game like AH, it has a placeholder and HTC will need to add it to fill it out.

And many, many vital aircraft don't even have a placeholder.

Originally posted by -ammo-
It doesn't matter that its design is similar to the B-17,  what matters is that it played a monstrous role in WW2 and AH needs it.

I disagree in the degree that matters.  The B-24 should be added eventually, but not until aircraft with no placeholders have been added.  The Pe-2 also played a monstrous role in WWII and it doesn't even have a placeholder.

Originally posted by -ammo-
I feel the same about a Betty as well.  That AC was used extensively and should be added as well.  Then we can have a "Get Yamamoto!!"  scenario as well as a big fat juicy Japanese target in all the arenas.

I see this request a lot.  However, without a slower Allied bomber it would serve to only make the already disadvantaged Japanese even more in scenarios and CT setups.  The bomber capability is, excepting the Ki-67, already skewed heavily to the Allies as the A6M2 cannot even intercept the Boston Mk III.  Couple that with the Japanese using 1937 and 1938 carrier bombers while the Allies have two 1943 carrier bombers.

You would see a G4M2 in the MA about as often as you see Boston Mk IIIs.  Why would a Japanese aircraft fan provide you with a "big fat juicy Japanese target" when he can fly a Ki-67 and actually have a fighting chance?

[-ammo-]

Karnak-

Its not that important to me to get into a debate over.  I will just have to respectfully disagree and hope HTC adds many AC in the near future.  As brady keyboarded earlier,  "I do hope we all get what we want eventualy".

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by United
There has been much discussion in several threads about the uses a B-24 could have in AH.  Several of these facts are compared to B-17s.  Heres my 2 cents.

1.) There were more B-24s made than any other bomber of WWII, and nearly 6000 more than B-17s.

2.) The B-24 was used in almost every theater of the war:  European, Mediteranian, N Africa, Pacific, and North Atlantic.

3.) The B-24 served in many roles, including maritime patrol, antisubmarine work, reconnaissance, tanker, cargo and personnel transport, not to mention plain level bombing.

4.) The B-24 dropped nearly 630,000 pounds of bombs, as the B17 dropped around the same amount (I dont have any numbers to back this up for the 17)

5.) The B-24 had an excellent range, meaning it could fulfill the roles mentioned in #3 sufficiently.

6.) The B-24 had a heavy defensive armament, with 10 .50 caliber MGs covering every point on the bomber.

7.) The B-24 was the only allied aircraft capable of completing trans-atlantic flights.

8.) The B-24 had a higher max speed (303mph) than the B-17C/D/G (291-302)

9.) The B-24 had a higher cruising speed than the B-17F/G (160mph)

10.) The B-24 was capable of carrying a heavier bombload than the B-17.

B-24: 5000-8,800lbs
B-17: 4000-6000lbs

There are only a few downsides to the B-24 compared to the B17.(There are more but I cant think of them as of now.)

1.) The b-17 could take a lot more punishment from enemy fire than the B-24.

2.) The B-17 was easier to handle at altitude.  The B-24 became very unstable above 25k because of the new Davis wing design.

You can compare specifications of different models of B-24s, and B-17s. http://www.ww2guide.com/usab.shtml

Now, with this data the following are the conclusions I made.  The B-24 had a lengthy service in WWII, from the beginning to the end.  It also served in just about every theater of the war, and there were more B-24s made than any bomber of WWII.  Now, why shouldnt we have the B-24?  It served just as well as the B-17, and i would argue it did better.

Besides, its just plain sexy!

Sure, another bomber formation to pinpoint bomb a lone gv.  I've said this a bunch of times.  I.A.R. 80 or bust.

Karaya

[Karnak]

-ammo-,

We'll see.  It is HTC's decision,

[brady]

"I do hope we all get what we want eventualy".

 I still do, and their is no anamisoity hear on my part, were are all  pashonate about the game and our favorate rides, and ones we want to see or we would not bother to discuse this, so again hopefully we will all get or favorate toys:)


 Though if I were to wager on this in the short term I suspect HTC will build the B-24 sooner rather than later, since it is likely to fit into their ToD neads in the short term.

[-ammo-]

Yep, what you ^^^ said:)

I would love to see a KI-84 and a J2M as well.  And even though we already have three of them..give me a P-47M:D