Author Topic: Rumors of new Bomber? Can anyone Confirm? (Read 2279 times)

Grits · « **Reply #30 on:** August 23, 2004, 10:30:33 PM »

I'm hoping for the Swordfish or the Skua.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #31 on:** August 23, 2004, 10:36:16 PM »

Cit do you really want the B24, you know how upset you will get about the damage modeling...

Arlo · « **Reply #32 on:** August 23, 2004, 10:38:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Citabria
to hell with the stupid CT its boring as paint drying.

Damn, Fes ... thought I about had you converted. Seriously, though ... the CT is only as boring as the players let it be. It's set to be an alternative to MA "everything, all the time" (except immersion)*

A neat experiment would be to slide the CT arena checkbox to the top of the list (default) and see how many players accidently click it to fly and go "WHOA! I didn't know AH had THIS!"

* Unless, of course, you're on the horde side.

United · « **Reply #33 on:** August 23, 2004, 10:40:44 PM »

The B-24 could take quite a bit of damage, and even though the facts say it cant, id be willing to bet against it. I've seen pictures and heard first-hand accounts of the 24 taking incredible amounts of damage and making it home.

Arlo · « **Reply #34 on:** August 23, 2004, 10:53:03 PM »

"The B-24 could take quite a bit of damage, and even though the facts say it cant, id be willing to bet against it."

Are you Bush's speechwriter? Hehe ... sorry .... deviated ... offtopic. Could be viewed as flamebait but I hope it ain't taken that way. This post may have a limited lifespan.

B17Skull12 · « **Reply #35 on:** August 23, 2004, 10:59:26 PM »

all i want to see is a damn b24 in the MA next patch.

i could hope in vein i might say for a He111 or a Ju87G.

United · « **Reply #36 on:** August 23, 2004, 11:26:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
"The B-24 could take quite a bit of damage, and even though the facts say it cant, id be willing to bet against it."

Are you Bush's speechwriter? Hehe ... sorry .... deviated ... offtopic. Could be viewed as flamebait but I hope it ain't taken that way. This post may have a limited lifespan.

Hehe, I use real words, so theres no way I could ever be a writer for Bush. I dont take it as flamebait, others may. But from what ive heard from firsthand accountss of B-24s in action Id take it into combat any day over a B-17.

Vote Nader!:D

Citabria · « **Reply #37 on:** August 23, 2004, 11:34:43 PM »

really not having a b24 is like having a p47 but no p38 in the planeset

Arlo · « **Reply #38 on:** August 23, 2004, 11:38:13 PM »

Kinda almost like having bombers and/or attack planes available for every country represented but one, eh?

Grits · « **Reply #39 on:** August 24, 2004, 12:06:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by United
The B-24 could take quite a bit of damage, and even though the facts say it cant, id be willing to bet against it.

Actually, I think that is a myth that the B-24 was less durable than the B-17. I think it was someone on this BBS that posted survival rates or something to that effect that stated the B-24 was more survivable than the B-17.

Tilt · « **Reply #40 on:** August 24, 2004, 03:59:35 AM »

to test if my crystal ball is better than others.............

IF AH are serious about TOD (and we have no reason to doubt it) then the B24 is the obviuos choice............its the single biggest hole in the targeted 1944 ETO plane set.

It also adds many new scenario options..........Ploesti will be planned as a scenario almost immediately this ac becomes available to say nothing of all the other conflicts where this ac played the single largest strategic role.

The B24 would be a "big job" (particularly if it has to go thru Festers quality control as well as HTC's) for HTC and so time spent would be almost twice that incurred for other ac. It may be that HTC want to bring new stuff on quicker and may have gone for an easier option.

We know that the TU-2 has been seriously looked at. If we were to get a Russian medium bomber I would prefer a Pe-2.

The MA has little to do with the choice of the next bomber (B29 apart)

We have Big (lanc) we have large and armoured (B17) we have fast (Arado) and a plethora of stuff lighter/faster/ etc etc. The only new bomber that would impact the MA is the B29 which would have to be the perked high alt milkrunner it was in RL and presently a waste of HTC's effort IMO.

United · « **Reply #41 on:** August 24, 2004, 03:33:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tilt
B29 ... a waste of HTC's effort IMO.

Agreed.

Mitsu · « **Reply #42 on:** August 24, 2004, 03:54:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
As to the topic of the thread, I'd not be surprised to see a B-24, but I think it more likely to be Russian. Tu-2S or Pe-2FT.

I'd put Germany in the running too with maybe Italy in a distant fourth.

So my top bets in order:

USSR:
Pe-2FT
Tu-2S

USA:
B-25
B-24

Germany:
Ju188A-2
He177A-5

Italy:
S.M.79-II
Z.1007

I'm out and done.

Don't forget G4M2 for IJNAF please!

BTW patch 10 is out today.
I hope Pyro posts a dev update of the next version too...

hyena426 · « **Reply #43 on:** August 24, 2004, 04:16:46 PM »

b-24 hands down is highest produced bomber in usa during ww2,,,better motors,,tad faster than b17,,but thinner wings,,any of you ever read wild blue?

think there was over 19,000 produced during ww2 i would hardly call this bomber secondairy to the allies in ww2,,,,kinda silly not to have the highest produced us bomber in ww2 ,,which im sure it wouldnt be in the hanger collecting dust in aces high

Maximum Speed: 290 mph (467 km/h)
Service Ceiling: 28,000 ft. (8,540 m)
Range: 2,200 miles (3,540 km)
Powerplant:
Four Pratt & Whitney R-1830-43 or 65 1,200 hp 14 cylinder radial engines.
Armament:
Six .50-calibre guns, two each in nose and dorsal turrets and in waist positions, and four .303-in. guns in a Boulton Paul tail turret. Internal bomb load of 8,000 lbs. (3,632 kg) with optional external bomb racks.

8,000 pounds of bombs,,i would hardly call that a worthless bomber:)

Muddie · « **Reply #44 on:** August 24, 2004, 04:17:45 PM »

I thought the 24 flew faster with more bombs than the B17. Shouldn't the 24 be the primary late war bomber?

Quote

Originally posted by oboe
Not so sure about that. TOD is coming and we know it will be initially based in the 1944 ETO. So, the realistic missions will be escorted US heavy bomber strikes and German interceptors.

B-24 might be useful as a secondary US heavy bomber.

I'd be interested to see the Greif as well, though. Thought I remember one of the artists saying what a difficult plane it would be to model though....