B-24: Why we should have it

[simshell]

can anyone bring up some stats of the PE-2 i would like to see if it could play a role not only in CT with its 15 people but with the MAIN

[Karnak]

Which version of the Pe-2?

Pe-2 (early war VVS bomber)

Pe-2FT (mid-war VVS bomber)

Pe-2B (late war VVS bomber)

I haven't got any good Pe-2 references, but it was produced in many versions.  I've seen it called Russia's Mosquito.

Here is what I have on the mid-war Pe-2FT:

Pe-2FT
Powerplant: two 1,260hp VK105PF V-12 engines
Performance: Maximum speed 279mph (449kph) at sea level and 360mph (580kph) at 13,125ft (4000m); service ceiling 28,870ft (8800m); range with 2,205lb (1,000kg) bombload 817 miles (1,315km)
Weights: empty 13,668lbs (6,200kg); maximum 18,783lbs (8,520kg)
Dimensions: span 56ft 2in (17.11m); length 41ft 11in (12.78m); height 11ft 3in (3.42m); wing area 436 sq ft
Armament: provision for four FAB-100 (220.5lb) bombs in internal bomb bay, two FAB-100 in rear of engine nacelles and four FAB-250 (551lb) bombs on external racks under center section; two 7.62mm ShKAS machine guns firing ahead aimed by pilot, MV-3 dorsal turret with single 12.7mm UBT, one 7.62mm ShKAS aimed by hand from rear ventral position


Now, the Pe-2 has been suggested not because it is a great MA bomber (though it is fast) but because with minimal work three versions can be done that would give the VVS a bomber for any stage of the war.

The best MA Russian bomber would be the Tu-2S:

Tu-2S
Powerplant: two 1,850hp Shvetsov ASh-82FN 14 cylinder radial engines
Performance: Maximum speed at full load 342mph (550kph) at medium altitudes; service ceiling 31,170ft (9,500m); range with 5,511lb (2,500kg) bombload 870 miles (1,400km)
Weights: empty (1943 production) 16,477lbs (7,474kg); maximum 25,044lbs (11,360kg)
Dimensions: span 61ft 10½in (18.86); length 45ft 3½in (13.8m); height 14ft 11in (4.55m); wing area 525 sq ft
Armament: two 20mm ShVAK cannon in the wing roots aimed by pilot, three single 12.7mm UBT machine guns aimed by crew; normal maximum bombload 6,614lbs (3,000kg) with provision for 8,818lbs (4,000kg) as overload

[United]

Been out of town for the weekend and havent had a chance to respond lately, but reading whats been posted heres what Ive come up with.

Citabria puts up a good arguement because yes, the B-24 was used by not only the British and American forces, but were delivered to (not sure if used by since they were defeated so quickly) the French.

Now yes, a four-engined heavy bomber will take a majority of HTC's resources to model correctly, as Brady has said.  Yes, it would be more convienent to see more early-mid war planes, especially from Russia and Italy, instead of another late war heavy American bomber.  I have no rejection against that, as I too would like to see several more planes added.  I do think, however, that a B-24 should be higher on the priority list than other planes that would most likely see less use in the MA.

Now Brady, I know that the CT is lacking severly because of the limited planeset, especially in Pacific and Eastern Front scenarios.  I would love to see more Russian and Japanese aircraft added to fill in these gaps, even if that means putting a B-24 on the shelf for a while.

For a CT bomber, I believe a G4M, Pe-2, or He-177 would benefit more than a B-24 for the fact that both the Japanese, German, and Russian sides in CT setups lack the bomber support that the Allies have.

As for an MA bomber, I believe the B-24 would benefit most.  Reason being it is fast, heavily armed, and can carry around 8,000 pounds of bombs.  There are many times I would like to have just that, but am not given the opportunity because the B-17 can carry at most 4 1000lbs or 12 100lbs, but offers the speed I like.  The Lancaster carries more than ample bombs, 12 1000lbs, but severly lacks speed and climb rate because of it.  A B-24 would provide a decent medium between them.

Here are specifications for a G4M, B-24, Tu-2S and He-177, and my number grade 1-10 (1 being lowest etc...) on how I feel they would compete in the CT and MA.*

G4M3 Model 34: Late War-
Top Speed: 292 mph (470 km/h) at 16,895 ft. (5150m)
Bomb Loadout: One 800 kg (1,764 lb) Torpedo or 1000 kg (2,205 lb.) of bombs
Armament: Four 20-mm cannon, Two 7.7-mm (0.303-in) machine guns
Range: 2,340 nautical miles
More Info: http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/IJARG/g4mbetty.htm or http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijna/g4m.htm
My rating: 6

B-24J: Early 1944-
Top Speed: 290 mph (467 km/h) at 25,000 feet, 303 mph (488km/h) at 15,000
Bomb Loadout: Up to 12,800 lbs. of bombs at absolute maximum amount
Armament: 10 x .50 cal MG
Range: 3200 miles empty weight
More Info: http://www.pacificwrecks.com/resources/tech/aircraft/liberator.html or http://www.aviationclassics.org.uk/b24.html
My rating: 8

Tu-2S: Mid-Late 1944-
Top Speed: Maximum speed at full load 342mph (550kph) at medium altitudes
Bomb Loadout: 1 2,204 lb bomb, or 2 1,102 lb bombs, or up to 3 2,204 lb bombs, Max of 6,613.
Armament: 3 0.3 inch SkHAS guns,  2 0.50 inch UB.
Range: 1242 miles
More Info: Karnak's post above, http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/tupotu2.html
My rating: 7.5

He-177: mid 1943-
Top Speed: 303 mph (488km/h) at medium altitudes
Bomb Loadout: 13,200 lb (6000kg)
Armament: 2 20 mm MG 151/20 guns, 3 MG 131 machine guns, 3 MG 81 machine guns
Range: 3,417 miles
More Info: http://www.ww2guide.com/germanb.shtml or http://users.belgacom.net/aircraft1/avion1/73.html
My rating: 9

Now, I have rated the He-177 as the best of the 4, but the He-177 process was a complete disaster, as quoted from http://users.belgacom.net/aircraft1/avion1/73.html:

"It is probably the most disastrous air program of the war. While initially intended as a four-engined maritime attack plane, new specifications imposed that it could operate as a dive-bomber and that the engines would be coupled two by two. It led to an never ending series of accidents, mainly engine fires while fying at cruising speed.  When they finally reached the units in 1943, the accidents would continue. They served without much succes on the Eastern Front and played first part during the "litte Blitz" against Britain early in 1944, suffering heavy losses. Year 1944 was not yet ended that the fuel shortages put an end to their career."

Since HTC can't (or hasn't yet) really modeled in flight damages (such as electrical failures, engine fires in level flight, etc.) not caused by enemy fire, the He-177 would be an incredible plane if flown as the Germans had originally intended and worthy of perk status IMO.

*I didn't get all of my numbers off of these sites.

[Karnak]

United,

You may want to look at your G4M numbers again as nobody is suggesting that the G4M3 be added.  The request is for the G4M1 or G4M2 which lack any protection of any sort and have less defensive firepower.  They do fly farther though.

I'd rate the G4M2 at about a 2 for MA suitability and it only gets that high because it has a 20mm cannon in the tail.

The Wellington Mk III is VERY tough for a twin, carries 4,500lbs but is slow as heck and only defended by a quad of .303s in the tail and a dual .303 nose turret.  I give it a 3 for MA worthyness.

I'd rate the Pe-2FT at about a 4 due to speed.

The He177A-5 typically carried about 3,000kg, so I'd rate it about a 6.

The Tu-2S carries as much and is faster, but weaker on defensive firepower.  I'd rate it about a 6 as well.

The Ju188A-2 is also fast and carries a like bombload, but also has a 20mm cannon in a turret.  I give it a 7.

The B-24J carries 8,000lbs and is armed with 10 50 cals, but is a bit more fragile than the B-17G.  I give it an 8.

The H8K2 is a flying boat, but it is a tough four engined aircraft with good defensive firepower and a decent bombload that includes the option for torpedoes.  I give it an 8 as well due to the uniqueness of it being a flying boat.

The Mosquito B.Mk XVI is VERY fast and carries a single 4,000lb bomb while being completely unarmed.  Due to the likely perking of the Mossie16 I give it a MA value of 5, or 9 without being perked.

The B-29A is very well defended, fast and has a HUGE bombload.  I give it an MA value of 6 because it will be a perk plane.  If, for some insane reason, it is not perked I give it a 10.

[United]

You may want to look at your G4M numbers again as nobody is suggesting that the G4M3 be added. The request is for the G4M1 or G4M2 which lack any protection of any sort and have less defensive firepower. They do fly farther though.

Whoops, I missed that, but I just went by the G4M that had the best numbers, and the 3 was it, and they were poor compared to the other 3 I specified.

A Wellington is probably not much of a necessity because a B-26 easily outclasses it, and with your numbers it appears that a Boston could serve the same purpose.  Now, seeing it added to AH eventually would be fine with me, but I wouldnt fly it much at all.

Now, the numbers I got on the He-177 were very different than your bombload.  I have that the He-177A-5 carried more (6000kg total) than the Lancaster.  With the numbers I found, it seems the He-177 would be the bomber of choice for me, with the exception of a B-24.

Im not so sure about the Mosquito B.Mk XVI.  I've never seen anything about this plane, and after a few quick Google searches I didnt find much relating to it.  By your description of it, I probably wouldnt ever fly it.  If it carries only 1 4000lb bomb, especially if it is unarmed, why would anyone fly it?  Unless it has a top speed of over 450, I probably wouldnt touch it.  Could you please shoot me some more info on this bird, because to me it seems that it wouldnt be much of an MA competitor, not at all a perk ride.

The H8K2 is a flying monster.  Yes, it is substantially smaller than the B-29A, it is after all, a flying boat.  124 foot wingspan, 92 feet long .  I also agree with you on this one because of the decent armament and comparable 4,408lbs bombload.

The B-29 is in a class of its own.  HUGE bombload, incredible range, and extensive armament, I completely agree with you on the ratings.  And yes, it'd better be a perk plane if modeled into AH.

Now, of those you listed, the only ones Id be alright with seeing in AH before a B24 would be the He-177A-5, or maybe the G4M2 for CT and SEA reasons only.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by United
A Wellington is probably not much of a necessity because a B-26 easily outclasses it, and with your numbers it appears that a Boston could serve the same purpose.  Now, seeing it added to AH eventually would be fine with me, but I wouldnt fly it much at all.

In terms of the MA I agree that the Wellington Mk III doesn't really add anything, but seriously neither does the Boston Mk III.  The problem that the Boston Mk III has when used in the CT and scenarios as the Allied early war bomber is that it is simply too fast for the Axis fighters to intercept.  I had one run down my Bf109E-4 at sea level, and from a lesser E state.  The Wellington Mk III or B-25C are needed for the Allies so that early war setups have an Allied bomber that can actually be intercepted.

Originally posted by United
Now, the numbers I got on the He-177 were very different than your bombload.  I have that the He-177A-5 carried more (6000kg total) than the Lancaster.  With the numbers I found, it seems the He-177 would be the bomber of choice for me, with the exception of a B-24.

It could carry 13,000lbs like the B-17G could 16,000lbs.  However, the B-17G usually carried 4,000 or 6,000lbs and the He177A-5 usually carried about 3,000kg I'd guess.  Which loadout does the B-17G in AH have?

Originally posted by United
Im not so sure about the Mosquito B.Mk XVI.  I've never seen anything about this plane, and after a few quick Google searches I didnt find much relating to it.  By your description of it, I probably wouldnt ever fly it.  If it carries only 1 4000lb bomb, especially if it is unarmed, why would anyone fly it?  Unless it has a top speed of over 450, I probably wouldnt touch it.  Could you please shoot me some more info on this bird, because to me it seems that it wouldnt be much of an MA competitor, not at all a perk ride.

The Mosquito Mk XVI has a top speed of 416mph and due to its bomb bay is faster when loaded than the Ar234 is when loaded.  Yes, if the Mosquito XVI gets attacked from above by a P-51 or 109G-10 it is in a world of hurt, but....  Given the short radar range in AH it would be nigh impossible to plan to be above an incomming Mosquito XVI raid and there is simply no way that a fighter climbing at 150mph is ever going to catch the Mosquito.  It boils down to the fact that you cannot climb to intercept it unless you are using an Me163 or, if you are willing to give a long chase, an Me262.  The Bf109G-10 can get of to the needed altitude fastest of all free aircraft but would be so far behind that it would run out of fuel before catching the Mosquito.  Like in WWII intercepting one would be more a factor of luck than planning.  It may not be for you, but a nearly uninterceptable 4,000lb bomb needs perking.

To stop the suicide runs it would be used for if nothing else.

Originally posted by United
The H8K2 is a flying monster.  Yes, it is substantially smaller than the B-29A, it is after all, a flying boat.  124 foot wingspan, 92 feet long .  I also agree with you on this one because of the decent armament and comparable 4,408lbs bombload.

Actually, the H8K2 could carry two 1,500kg bombs giving it a good anti-HQ or other hardpoint tumpage capablity.

This thread is the ultimate H8K2 thread ever and will provide you with all the data you could want on it:

H8K2 Emily Information

Edit: Dang, pictures are gone.  I can email them to you if you like.

[artik]

All these heavy bombers B-24, B-29 etc... good for MA.
What about CT, ToD?
We need early war bombers:
For BoB, Early Eastern Front we must have Do-17.
What about it?..........
We need early war planeset also before all these MA mosters...
We must have I-16....
We must have Pe-2 at least one of them.......

We need early war planeset!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Karnak]

G4M2 and Wellington Mk III are MA monsters?

We are discussing multiple aircraft, stemming from the pros and cons of adding B-24J now.

[United]

Ah, I had a nice response written up and my PC froze, so heres just a summary of what I had.

I do agree with you now about the Mossie 16.  Cruising around in the high 300s low 400s, yes that would be a nice addition and a pleasent change from my usual rides.

According to Mitsu, the H8K2 has a cruise speed of 184mph, and max speed of 290, so I'd say most AHers would fly at full throttle, so it would probably fly at about the same speeds as the B-17. After reading most of Mitsu's posts and looking at all the data, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it showed up as a perk bird around 10-20 points each, mostly because of the heavy defensive armament.

Artik, there are gaping holes in the early war planeset for Russia mostly.  But, if you add the I-16 you must think, how much action will it really get?  90% of players play in the MA, some exclusively.  I'm betting that the I-16 would get used maybe as much as a P-40 or 109E-4.  A Pe-2 would probably see as much usage as the B-26 does.  A Pe-2 would be reasonably high on the priority list because it would be an asset to the MA, CT, and SEA.  The I-16 would not.

A B-24J would see as much, if not more, usage as the B-17 does now.  It too, would be a great asset to CT for use in all theaters of the war.  With the new skinning capability, you could also create British as well as American B-24s.  The B-24J is a good all-around bomber and would probably benefit more for all arenas, especially MA, than early war fighters.

Yes, the plane set is lacking, but I feel a B-24 should be higher on the priority list than an I-16 or Do-17 (which reminds me a lot of a heavier armed Ju-88).

[artik]

Artik, there are gaping holes in the early war planeset for Russia mostly. But, if you add the I-16 you must think, how much action will it really get? 90% of players play in the MA, some exclusively. I'm betting that the I-16 would get used maybe as much as a P-40 or 109E-4. A Pe-2 would probably see as much usage as the B-26 does. A Pe-2 would be reasonably high on the priority list because it would be an asset to the MA, CT, and SEA. The I-16 would not.

Yes I agree we need Pe-2,
But also all early war Eastern front setup can not be really build without I-16...
yes it will not be used at MA but is will be in ToD, CT and SEA like 109E, P-40B, Spit I and Hurri I are used....
Finaly lots of nice early war eastern front setup could be done..... Land lease aircrafts do not suit early war setups......

I-16 can bring Spain Civilan War to CT, It will be good addition to FinRus etc....,
 

We defenatly need it

[United]

Yes, the I-16 can make a Spanish Civil War Scenario in CT realistic, but think what a B-24 could bring:

Battle for Iwo Jima
Ploesti bombing raids
Battle for Wake Island
Invasion of Sicily and Italy

I'm betting the B-24 can add to more scenarios than the I-16 can.  I'd like to see an I-16 modeled, but I feel a B-24 is higher on the priority list as of now.

[SEXOpsy]

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!

if u look at number ten ur wrong. the b17 could carry about 15,000lbs of bombs but rarely went into combat with more than 6,000lbs

[brady]

"I'm betting the B-24 can add to more scenarios than the I-16 can. I'd like to see an I-16 modeled, but I feel a B-24 is higher on the priority list as of now."

 The issue with the B-24 is that we have a plane already that can act and did act in it's stead and or operated in the same time and place as id it did and was prety much identical in game terms...the B-17. The I-16 on the other hand would be entirely New for a time and place plane for the following:

Russia(early war)
Spain
China
Finland

 For early war we have No Fighter for these places that was operated by the Countrys that respecitely operated them, Nore do we have a bomber for those places and tiems and many others.

................

 I spent over 2.5 years doing scenario set up's in the CT and the B-24 would add Nothing at present and in fact could do more harm than good in some respects by further compounding plane set imbalances that are present in the curent plane set in AH.

[simshell]

Originally posted by Karnak

 

The Mosquito Mk XVI has a top speed of 416mph intercept it unless you are using an Me163 or, if you are willing to give a long chase, an Me262.
To stop the suicide runs it would be used for if nothing else.

.

chase-ing any Prop plane in a ME262 is never a long chase

the Mosquito Mk XVI is a hard plane to say how much use its going to get  if its perked its going to get as much use as the ARE234 if its not then its going to get as much as the c.205 which is a odd plane to see but not rare

when it comes to who needs bombers

US needs a early war bomber
Japan needs a early war bomber
brits need a early war bomber
russ needs a bomber
Germ needs a late war bomber

but this list is for the 15 CT players everday

what does the MAIN need

LATE WAR
LATE WAR
LATE WAR
LATE WAR

[Arlo]

You don't get it. Main don't need squat.