Author Topic: Why AH2 should have the Blenheim bomber!  (Read 870 times)

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Why AH2 should have the Blenheim bomber!
« Reply #15 on: August 27, 2004, 12:55:45 PM »
ra,

Better the porcupine that you can catch than the rabbit that you can't.  Fast bombers were, plane for plane, far more efective than armed bombers in WWII.

Re: Throttle,

Yes it does affect fighters too, but in reality fighters were far, far more likely to be flying on full throttle than bombers.

Krusty,

OK, B-25B then.  I'm not a B-25 fan and so don't know much about them.  Pick a slow one that is early war.  Having one also opens up the possibility of getting the B-25H and B-25J that people seem to want so badly.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Why AH2 should have the Blenheim bomber!
« Reply #16 on: August 27, 2004, 01:00:49 PM »
No. no, you got it right. B-25C is the most likely early candidate. But as it improved later it got heavier and slower, is all.


I'm all for a B-25, but I still think people will say B-25 is out of place for the "early" bomber set.

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
Why AH2 should have the Blenheim bomber!
« Reply #17 on: August 27, 2004, 01:11:23 PM »
The CT is neither historical nor any more "real" then the main. It’s a main with a limited plane set. Everything you see in the main happens in the CT.

In an arena where you have base capture as a rule then all sides need to have similar capabilities. They aren’t recreating history they are playing a game.  Even with the Ki-67 as a stand in it carries a limited bomb load and as long as it isn’t at 16k + it isn’t any faster then the allied fighters.

The Betty max speed 272 mph (438 km/h) at 15,090 ft (4600 m)

The Peggy max speed is 334 mph (537 km/h) at 19,980 ft (6090 m)

At 15k the Peggy does 316 or so...



Both the Betty and Peggy are similarly armed.

The Ju-88 has much weaker defensive armament. When the Ju-88 was subbed in for the Betty folks complained of its bomb load and interestingly enough its "toughness". You would see the return of dive bombing JU-88's with huge bomb loads porking CVs or doing suicide torpedo runs with their 6 torpedos per formation etc...

Folks didn’t want the Ju-88 they wanted no axis offensive capability other then the Val and Kate. A quick comparison of the Ki-67 vs. the Ju-88 in the CT seems to indicate that the Ju-88 with its larger bomb load would have a great impact then the Ki-67. In fact the only way the Ki-67 becomes troublesome is when folks chase after them. Left alone you would hardly know they are there.

I did not say the Boston didn't belong or shouldn't be used. What I said was that folks complained of the ki67s speed. When folks complained about the Ki67 they weren’t complaining just on historical reasons.

They said it was too fast period neglecting the fact that the Boston was faster.

'42 - '43 in New Guinea / Solomon’s the Boston didn’t make up the majority of Allied bombers either.

In the CT they just recently subbed the Boston for the Blenheim in the CT for ‘41 Circus btw...

Let’s not pretend were talking about “historical accuracy”.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Why AH2 should have the Blenheim bomber!
« Reply #18 on: August 27, 2004, 01:24:58 PM »
I would like to see the G4M2 "Betty" in AH.  It is a neat bomber that played an important, if not particularly successful, role in WWII.

However, adding the G4M2 without addressing the sister issue of the Boston MK III will just further exacerbate the imbalance we already have when matching the D3A1 (1937) against the SBD-5 (1943) and B5N2 (1938) against the TBM-3 (1943).

Both sides need to be balanced/fixed, or neither.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline rogerdee

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2286
      • http://rogerdee.co.uk
early bombers
« Reply #19 on: August 27, 2004, 01:41:15 PM »
ok  for a useless bomber  how about  fairy  battle  or   slightly  heavier  a  whitly.
  I would  love  to  see   a whimpy  or  a  beaufort especialy  on  oskanass  with  all the  shiping  to kill.
At  the  moment  american bombers  rule.
  we  need  some  german bombers  and  italian  and japanese,  and    a  early  british  pair.
most  guys  only like to  furball  in fighters  but  some  guys  do  like  buf  and  would  like  something  different.
   but please  please  no  b29:p

rogerdee
490th battling bulldogs
www.rogerdee.co.uk

it does what it says on the tin

Offline Panzzer

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2890
Why AH2 should have the Blenheim bomber!
« Reply #20 on: August 27, 2004, 05:04:33 PM »
With the current AH planeset I don't see the Blenheim coming along soon... We need more early war planes before the Blenheim. But the Blenheim was a fast bomber at the beginning of it's career. Well, the fighters developed quickly at that time and soon the Blenheim wasn't fast enough - and it had light defensive armament. :(

But it would be a nice addition, since Finns had those (in operation both in the Winter War 1939-40 and in the Continuation War 1941-44). But I really don't see it as a soon-to-be addition... I'd much rather have the Brewster and some Pe-2's or other targets for the Brewster. ;)
Panzzer - Lentorykmentti 3

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Why AH2 should have the Blenheim bomber!
« Reply #21 on: August 27, 2004, 07:38:08 PM »
Man there are so many planes they need to introduce for ToD...

I for one would love to see the Whimpie, Blen, Betty, He-111, and the DB-3 come to AH.


Crumpp

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Why AH2 should have the Blenheim bomber!
« Reply #22 on: August 27, 2004, 09:18:51 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Furball
i think the blen is one of the most beautiful a/c ever made.... utterly useless apart from being bait.. but beautiful..

 


THe early model with the sleek canopy is even better looking! :)



Gotta have the Blenheim!

And next, biplane fighters!
« Last Edit: August 27, 2004, 09:23:13 PM by GRUNHERZ »

Offline Furball

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15781
Why AH2 should have the Blenheim bomber!
« Reply #23 on: August 28, 2004, 08:41:50 AM »
better looking whilst in your gunsight? :D
I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know.
-Cicero

-- The Blue Knights --

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Why AH2 should have the Blenheim bomber!
« Reply #24 on: August 28, 2004, 03:46:27 PM »
When I get my Cr42 I'll be curing all you straosphere runninmg Blenein dweebs!

Offline Grendel

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 877
      • http://www.compart.fi/icebreakers
Why AH2 should have the Blenheim bomber!
« Reply #25 on: August 29, 2004, 02:50:43 AM »
mmmm Blenheim....



One of those planes that was used from 1939 to the end of the war, jum jum. Definitely worthly addition :)

Offline Flyboy

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1582
Why AH2 should have the Blenheim bomber!
« Reply #26 on: August 29, 2004, 07:04:33 AM »
the 2 british early war bombers i would like to see added to AHare the blenheim and the vickers wellington.

both of them stayed in service untill the end of the war

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Why AH2 should have the Blenheim bomber!
« Reply #27 on: September 01, 2004, 07:23:07 PM »
Furballl mentioned the Stirling, now there's something.
It's basically equal to the Lancaster, except for high alt performance. It has a heavy bombload, a very big bay, and could carry a horrendous lot of light bombs, something like 60 if I recall right.
It was much earlier ready than the Lancaster and was used on Circus operations.
I'd bet it could see use in AH as an airbase carpet-bomber.
60 bombs x 3 would make it THE PORKMASTER. 1 pass......
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)