B-24: Why we should have it

[Ike 2K#]

What's the point of having early war bombers in CT (G4M, B-25, ect) if 10-15 people in there want dueling...

[Karnak]

Originally posted by simshell
chase-ing any Prop plane in a ME262 is never a long chase

It would be a long chase.  Intercepts don't start co-alt.  The Mosquito starts at 25,000ft going about 400mph and the Me262 starts on the runway going 0mph.  First the Me262 has to take off and climb to 25,000ft.  The whole time it is doing that the Mosquito is putting distance between it and the Me262.  Once the Me262 reaches 25,000ft it then has to accelerate to a faster speed than the Mosquito and make up all the distance the Mosquito has built up.  The overtake speed will not exceed 140mph, and the average overtake speed will be significantly lower due to the acceleration time.

The Me262 will overtake the Mosquito, but it will not be quick.


FWIW, I'll bet that a unperked Mossie 16 would be the base suicide porkers aircraft of choice.  You can't miss with a 4,000lb bomb and it will get that bomb to the target faster than a P-51D will get it's two 1,000lb bombs there.

[Mugzeee]

Why i support your request?
Well there are several reasons.
1: Aces High Heavy Bombing has taken on a new face in the Main Arena. With the new (Carpet Bombing Model) NME Strategic re-supply: Factories, Cities, Depots, and HQ are the targets of choice, and they should be. These targets are perfectly suited to this type of historic bombing. And contrary to popular belief, a well planed strike on this system can have a devastating, and lasting effect on the NME. WTG Hitech.

The problem with these strategic targets is that they are located deep into the NME zones requiring extra long-range flights. And these Long range Flights are LONGER that ever before with the larger maps we now use in the MA. The B17 and Lancaster that we currently have in the MA are running out of a Full Fuel Load on many of these long-range missions. A Raid on NME HQ will almost definitely end in a ditch. That is if one can survive those Pesky ME163s. There are 6 of us on our squad alone that are logging 2-hour flights, sometimes even longer. These missions almost always end in the Ditching of our Bombers.

2: The B24 Liberator had a very nice Armament Configuration that was comparable to the B17G.
A: TEN .50 Cal Machine Guns
B: Gun Positions in the Nose, Ball, Tail, Waist, and one Up stairs too!
C: Liberator had a Range of 2300 miles with a 5000 lb. Bomb Load.


Key Factor for AH with its new Larger Maps:
B17 had a Range of 1850 miles with a 4000 lb. Bomb Load.
While the B24 Liberator had a Range of 2300 miles with a 5000 lb. Bomb Load.


The B24 LIBERATOR if modeled historically, has a Greater Range than the B17 or the Lancaster we currently have in the AH Main Arena. It has an Armament configuration as good as the B17. And although it historically carried a smaller Bomb Load, it could carry more than enough bombs to make it a wonderful addition to the AH Heavy Bomber Menu.
After all, the B17 in AH is modeled to carry 6,000lbs Maximum Bomb Load. While in fact the B17G was capable of carrying 17,600 lbs of bombs!

The Lack of dedicated historical style Bomber Escort pilots in the Game means that us bomber pilots usually have to go alone. And the fact that a Single Fighter can take apart an entire Bomber formation, means a flight path that puts us on the target BEFORE we get jumped. Which almost always means taking the LONG WAY around!
Which in turn means major Fuel Consumption. We just want to RTB

[United]

Psy, you are correct, but also incorrect.  The numbers I posted are of what each bomber carried into combat.  Those numbers are correct.  In real life, the B-17 could carry more bombs (17,800) than the B-24 (12,800) but that would be absolutely maxed out.  The 24 usually carried more into combat.

Brady, I know that you have spent countless hours setting up CT events and things of that sort, and you do prove an excellent point.  It wouldnt bother me at all to see several early war planes from the countries you listed before a B-24.  Russia especially needs a few early war fighters, and at least one bomber.  But I do still feel a B-24 would make more sense to model than other planes.

Mugzeee, I do agree with you.  Range is now more important than it ever was in AH1 because of the new fuel consumption model.  With squads like yours, I think that the B-24 would be the bomber of choice because of the long range and the large bomb loadout.  If the larger combat loadout is used, then that means more range, 8,800lbs of bombs, and nearly the same gun assortment as the B-17.

Ike, when I fly in the CT, I usually am interested in bombing.  There usually arent many players around, and if there are its usually hard to find them.  I go to the CT mainly to bomb and try out different things.

[artik]

Originally posted by simshell

.........

what does the MAIN need

LATE WAR
LATE WAR
LATE WAR
LATE WAR

Main Arena........
MA needs only following planes La7, Spit9, N1K, P-51D, Lancaster (to divebomb CVs), B-17 for ACK stars....... and time to time 109 190. and yes it needs B-29 with A-Bomb for HQ

That what MA is.....
if you get B-24 it will have aboslutly same usage as B-17 they are planes of same class.....

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

Yes CT players are really who cares of historical gameplay and not one big furball of all planes of all types....

........
anb BTW not only CT......

Look to the BoB scenario - about 200-250 players.....
It really needs Do-17 - also any erly war setup needs this plane....
it was one of most used ealry war LW bombers.......

We need planes of all periods.....
what about ToD - it will have historical setup and not virtual MA setups....... it also needs some early war planes.......

I have to mention.....
We defenetly have very good planeset for late war setups.....
but nothing for early........

[artik]

Originally posted by Mugzeee
Why i support your request?
Well there are several reasons.
1: Aces High Heavy Bombing has taken on a new face in the Main Arena. With the new (Carpet Bombing Model) NME Strategic re-supply: Factories, Cities, Depots, and HQ are the targets of choice, and they should be. These targets are perfectly suited to this type of historic bombing. And contrary to popular belief, a well planed strike on this system can have a devastating, and lasting effect on the NME. WTG Hitech.

The problem with these strategic targets is that they are located deep into the NME zones requiring extra long-range flights. And these Long range Flights are LONGER that ever before with the larger maps we now use in the MA. The B17 and Lancaster that we currently have in the MA are running out of a Full Fuel Load on many of these long-range missions. A Raid on NME HQ will almost definitely end in a ditch. That is if one can survive those Pesky ME163s. There are 6 of us on our squad alone that are logging 2-hour flights, sometimes even longer. These missions almost always end in the Ditching of our Bombers.

2: The B24 Liberator had a very nice Armament Configuration that was comparable to the B17G.
A: TEN .50 Cal Machine Guns
B: Gun Positions in the Nose, Ball, Tail, Waist, and one Up stairs too!
C: Liberator had a Range of 2300 miles with a 5000 lb. Bomb Load.


Key Factor for AH with its new Larger Maps:
B17 had a Range of 1850 miles with a 4000 lb. Bomb Load.
While the B24 Liberator had a Range of 2300 miles with a 5000 lb. Bomb Load.


The B24 LIBERATOR if modeled historically, has a Greater Range than the B17 or the Lancaster we currently have in the AH Main Arena. It has an Armament configuration as good as the B17. And although it historically carried a smaller Bomb Load, it could carry more than enough bombs to make it a wonderful addition to the AH Heavy Bomber Menu.
After all, the B17 in AH is modeled to carry 6,000lbs Maximum Bomb Load. While in fact the B17G was capable of carrying 17,600 lbs of bombs!

The Lack of dedicated historical style Bomber Escort pilots in the Game means that us bomber pilots usually have to go alone. And the fact that a Single Fighter can take apart an entire Bomber formation, means a flight path that puts us on the target BEFORE we get jumped. Which almost always means taking the LONG WAY around!
Which in turn means major Fuel Consumption. We just want to RTB

All this is defenetly good but you foret one simple thing......
you want to increase flight range for bombers????????
Ask HT to give different fuel burn multiplayer for bombers.......
or just ask to set it 1.0 for histroical gameplay........

And BTW at all small maps I have no any problems to get with Ardo (!) to enemy HQ with 3x500kg bombs and return with 25% of fuel.....
So where are all B-17 and/or Lancaster raids on HQ at small maps?????

[Mugzeee]

Originally posted by artik
All this is defenetly good but you foret one simple thing......
you want to increase flight range for bombers????????
Ask HT to give different fuel burn multiplayer for bombers.......
or just ask to set it 1.0 for histroical gameplay........

And BTW at all small maps I have no any problems to get with Ardo (!) to enemy HQ with 3x500kg bombs and return with 25% of fuel.....
So where are all B-17 and/or Lancaster raids on HQ at small maps?????

well sir...actually i haven forgoten. The Fuel Burn issue has been addressed since AH2 release.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=122511&referrerid=7566
PS. we must be careful of how we state our opinion. Sometimes ppl think we are whining and this look bad.

True about the small maps. no real problem.
But the Large maps will soon be in rotation.

As for the HQ?
the HQ was only used as an example. I repeat
The HQ is for example ONLY.
Many factories are far enough away to have the same effect on range.

[artik]

I hope Panman see his P61 in AH2 Arena someday.

To all gamers asking for late war planes

Lets bring couple of early war planes to fill the huge holes in CT/SEA/ToD setups before asking new late war plane that we have enough

Need:

• Early Russian fighters
• Early/Mid Russian bombers
• Early LW bombers
• Early RAF bombers
• Some Japaneese bombers/fighters like Ki-84

These need before all B-24s, P-61s, B-29s and others......
:p

[United]

Originally posted by artik

• Early Russian fighters
• Early/Mid Russian bombers
• Early LW bombers
• Early RAF bombers
• Some Japaneese bombers/fighters like Ki-84

These need before all B-24s, P-61s, B-29s and others......
:p [/B]

Yes that is true.  I agree with you in the fact that those aircraft are needed before the B-24s, B-29s, and so on.  If you are being serious about the planes you listed that the MA needs, I completely disagree with you there.  I'd like to see every WWII plane modeled eventually, but I'd absolutely hate to see planes taken away.  Besides, theres no P-38, P-40, Mossie, or yak on there!:D

Mugzeee has a good point because with the new fuel consumption model, fuel is going to be harder to conserve therefore making long range bombing missions difficult.  Thats where a long range bomber is needed, such as the B-24, which has a greater range than the B-17.

Now, if you dont like the idea of a late war American Heavy bomber, how bout the early war version?

B-24D
2,598 B-24Ds built by three factorys.

Wing Span: 110 ft. 0 in.
Length: 64 ft. 4 in.
Height: 17 ft. 11 in.
Weight: 56,000 lbs. loaded
Armament: Eleven .50-cal. machine guns
Bombload: 8,000 pounds of bombs in combat loadout.
Engines: Four Pratt & Whitney R-1830-43 supercharged radials of 1,200 hp. each (take-off power)

Maximum speed: 303 mph.
Cruising speed: 200 mph.
Range: 4,600 miles (max. ferry range); 2,850 miles w/ 5,000 lbs. bomb load
Service Ceiling: 32,000 ft.

Views of the B-24
3/4 front view (Port)


Front View


Side View (Starboard)


3/4 Front View (Starboard)


Side View (Port)


Formation


http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b2-38.htm for info

Looking at those numbers, the B-24J (mid-late war) has lesser numbers, but not by much.  Late war doesnt always mean better.

[artik]

Yes it would be nice to have someday B-24.

all I want to said that we need lots of others before....
And as I see you agree with it to.....

[United]

Yes sir, I do.  I've been saying in this thread every once in a while that I would much rather see the large gaps in the planeset filled in before we get a B-24, just I would like to see a B-24 before other birds like the B-29 or P-61.

[Sikboy]

While anyone who knows me at all, or has ever read one of my "new planes" posts, knows that I think the most urgent need in the planeset is a mid-late war strike aircraft for the IJN (Judy or Grace would fit the bill), I think that the B-24d would be nice.

It would give us an early-mid war Pacific bomber. Of course, the B-17e would give us something even earlier, but that's another thread

A B-24D paired with a G4M would be a welcome addition for Pacific setups. But not until I get my IJN Strike plane lol.

-Sik

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Sikboy
While anyone who knows me at all, or has ever read one of my "new planes" posts, knows that I think the most urgent need in the planeset is a mid-late war strike aircraft for the IJN (Judy or Grace would fit the bill), I think that the B-24d would be nice.

It would give us an early-mid war Pacific bomber. Of course, the B-17e would give us something even earlier, but that's another thread

A B-24D paired with a G4M would be a welcome addition for Pacific setups. But not until I get my IJN Strike plane lol.

-Sik

Here's the problem as I see it with folks asking for a B24D.  The glass nose B24s were being phased out by the end of 43 when the B24H with the nose turret was arriving in the ETO for example with the new B24 Groups.

In the Pac, they were grafting tail turrets onto the noses of their B24Ds so they looked like later model 24s anyway.

If at some point they do 2 B24 versions, then do the glass nosed D model, but if and I understand it's a big if, they do a B24 variant, it's better to do a turret nosed version like the H or J as they were by far more numerous then the D and cover the ETO, MTO and Pac based B24 groups much better as well as the Aussies who flew them and the Brits.

And if you are going to do an early mid war B17, the F is much more accurate as the E was not in service in large numbers.  The 19th and 43rd groups, flying with the 5th AF in the Pac had far more F models and outside of the first few missions of the 8th AF, the E model was done flying operations in favor of the F model by the end of September 42. and the chin turreted G models in action by the end of 43

Bottom line in a perfect world, you'd have the B17G and B24H/J as they cover more ground and it's easier to sub the later variant for the early models then vice versa as you are mainly talking armament set ups not performance as it was similar if not a little less due to the increased weights the turrets added.

For the skinners it makes sense too as you had both silver and OD/Gray 17Gs and 24Hs while you didn't have that with the early variants that were only OD/Gray.

Dan/Slack

[Mugzeee]

Actually do we NEED Any more AC in AH2?. I mean in the literal sense?. A lot of early war planes Ah planes collect dust in the hanger even now. Even in the CT and other special events.
But i am willing to wait till Artik gets what he wants first .
I would love to see the B24 Liberator in AH2 in the future.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by United

2,598 B-24Ds built by three factorys.


Looking at those numbers, the B-24J (mid-late war) has lesser numbers, but not by much.  Late war doesnt always mean better.

Keep in mind the J was not the only version to carry the turret in the nose.  You are talking 18,482 B24s produced of which  2,598 were D models and many of those D-models had nose turrets grafted on to the nose while in theater, in particular in the Pacific in the late summer of 43.

Throw in all the B24 variants that followed the D and you are talking close to 16 thousand built with nose turrets in one form or another.  It wasn't just the J.  The new groups that arrived in the ETO and MTO in late 43 were all equipped with the nose turreted H Model

Put it in the overall context of the game and the later nose turreted B24 makes better sense in particular for the scenario folks and the skin makers as it served in far more places with far more units and air forces.

You'd not find an RAAF glass nosed B24D but you'll find plenty of Turret nosed birds.  Same goes for the RAF Liberators operating in the Pacific.  Throw in that the turret nosed variants were both OD/Gray and later Silver with all those colorful group markings and it makes much more sense

The majority of the US Navy Liberators were also equipped with nose turrets which leaves that much more room for the skin makers to have some fun doing some of those birds too.

It might give those dreaming of PBY something to do too, driving around in a Navy Lib, patrolling the seas

Dan/Slack