B-24: Why we should have it

[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!

[Karnak]

Repost:

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


Next post will adress points.

[United]

Repost, an answer to your original post:

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.

I eagerly await your next post.

[Karnak]

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

True, but sheer numbers are not a great reason to add a unit when there are gaping holes.

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

[/b]
Once again true, but the B-17G is a reasonable stand in for scenarios dealing with those locations.

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.

[/b]
None of which are relevant in the context of AH.

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)

[/b]
Yes, the B-24 obviously played a huge role in WWII and should be included in AH, but due to the needs of scenarios it should have a lower priority.

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

[/b]
I've never seen a situation in AH or an AH scenario where a B-17s range came close to being too short.

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

[/b]
This does not distinguish it from the B-17G.

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

[/b]
This is not relevant to AH.  B-29A could also do so, but was not used in such a role.

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

[/b]
302 vs 303?  That is not very stunning.

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

[/b]
Bombers do not seem to ever use cruise settings in AH due to their enormous supply of fuel.

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

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

[/b]

This point and point 6 have always made be feel that in sim terms the B-24 is 3/4ths B-17G and 1/4th Lancaster Mk III.

I like choices in selections.  The Lancaster Mk III and B-17G are a great example.  The player has a choice of taking a heavy payload or taking a well defended bomber.  The B-24 simply adds a point between the two extremes represented by the Lanc and Fort.

[United]

As I said in my above post (which you may not have had a chance to read yet) I would like to see the holes filled in before a B-24 is added, but I would like to see a B-24 added eventually, especially before a B-29.

Your answer to #1 is very true, but you have to make some sort of recognition of how many of these planes were made, even if they didnt serve as big of a role as other bombers.  Of course, I agree with you that the holes should be filled first.

Once again true, but the B-17G is a reasonable stand in for scenarios dealing with those locations.

True, but having a B-24 varient could add to each scenario, and could add for a few more such as the Ploesti raids or the bombing of Iwo Jima.

None of which are relevant in the context of AH.

Absolutely correct, but I was just making note of what it could do.  Also, HT has made mention of adding submarines to AH, maybe, but not in the near future.  If subs were added, the B-24 could be used in its anti-submarine role, but that is in the distant future, maybe.

This does not distinguish it from the B-17G.

This is true, but it also says that it is the same as the B-17G, and not inferior by any means.

302 vs 303? That is not very stunning.

True, but it is faster.

Bombers do not seem to ever use cruise settings in AH due to their enormous supply of fuel.

This is true, but if there is a scenario involving the B-24 and fuel is crucial to the survival of the bomber group, then having a higher cruise speed would be a good thing because you can get in and out of the target area faster, meaning less time for enemy flak and fighters to cause serious damage.

This point and point 6 have always made be feel that in sim terms the B-24 is 3/4ths B-17G and 1/4th Lancaster Mk III.

I like choices in selections. The Lancaster Mk III and B-17G are a great example. The player has a choice of taking a heavy payload or taking a well defended bomber. The B-24 simply adds a point between the two extremes represented by the Lanc and Fort

I agree with you in the fact that choices are good, but i have run into the situation more often than not when I want more bombs than a B-17 can carry, but I also dont have time/patience (which is just part of me being lazy) to use 3 sectors or so climbing up to alt and speed to bomb with the Lanc.  I feel a B-24 could provide a decent medium.

[McGuinn]

Awesome research! You really proved your point United. I always wanted the B-24 in AH. It would be nice.

[United]

Originally posted by McGuinn
Awesome research! You really proved your point United. I always wanted the B-24 in AH. It would be nice.

Thanks McGuinn, but you also have to agree with karnak.  He's saying that we need to fill in the holes in scenarios and put things in priority.  As of now, a He-111 is more important than a B-24 because of the upcoming BoB scenario.  So, even though getting a B-24 would be absolutely fantastic in my mind, others would be angered because they feel the gap in the planeset is too far to have another American heavy bomber.  I agree with em, but a B-24 sure would be nice!

[McGuinn]

Very true.

[Pongo]

We need the naval B24 with the 20mm defensive guns.

[brady]

At this time I think it extreamly bad timing to add this plane, a plane this size takes as much work and time to model aparently as 3 or 4 fighters. Also we have a ton of freaking US equipment in the game a very well represented plane set for them indead, it would be nice if some work was done to realy expand the plane sets of the underrepresented countrys. I am not saying never add  the B 24 just not right now, we have a B 17 it has 4 engines is bristling with 50 cal's and carrys a bumch of bombs, prety much the same thing as a B 24 in game terms.

[-ammo-]

I think that this is the perfect time to add the much needed B-24 Liberator.  Without it, there is a large gap in the bomber planeset

I hope HTC models this plane soon.

[Raptor]

I think we need an early b24 and/or b17 for ToD

[Ike 2K#]

B-24 looks like most of british heavy bombers. I would love to see them on AH2 but HTC should expand the plane sets of the underrepresented countries

[Citabria]

B-24 was used by the british you get a british and american bomber in one with our new skinning ability.

Guys be honest with yourselves.
which new bomber would get used more and seen more in the Main Arena?

B-24?
He111?
he177?
g4m?


now don't lie to yourselves

the reason we need this pivotal American Bomber is because this american bomber was built to survive heavy fighter attacks and our main arena is full of heavy fighter attacks.

with the B-24 you get...
the B-24D base (this is the best one to model first)
the B-24D is easily converted into the B-24J (nose mod tail turret small change)
The B-24J is also modifiable into the PB4Y2 (the most bad bellybutton patrol bomber in ww2)

the B-24 was used by the british and americans on every single front.


and think about the one big scenario... the one that all the paintings are made of. the one that is legendary in its cost and audacity... ploesti.

could you really ever have a true ploesti scenario without this beautiful plane?

admit it.

B-24 makes sense

what about the TOD aspect of AH? clearly TOD will have a large element based on U.S. daylight raids. could you really have a U.S. daylight bomber and escort campaign without the B-24?

thats like not having the Fw190 and just the bf109 as a stand in.

its a key player and its absence is felt.

[brady]

No Other Heavy now makes since at all realy, Certainly Not an American one, hey I can understand you likeing it and all, but to offer a plane like the B-24 up as neaded  for any reasion other than Hey I like it is week at best. For Play balance issues their is more of a logical reasion to add any other Bomber for Russia, Italy, or Germany (He 177 NOT He 111), then lasty Japan. Scenarios and Events and the CT all sufer from the present lopsided nature of the Bomber issue in terms of modeling, and a Big 4 engine Bomber will suck up a ton of time and effort from HTC.