My guess...

[TexMurphy]

http://www.internetelite.ru/aircrafts/tu-2s.html

[vorticon]

your wrong

[Horn]

Cool. Check out the first skin on the page:

http://www.angelfire.com/fm/odyssey/B-24J.htm

h

[SOB]

Originally posted by vorticon
your wrong

What about his wrong?

[ra]

Oh well, I was hoping for any decent bomber other than the B-24.  This thing won't add much to the game.  Whinewhinewhine...

[Furious]

Won't it be useful for TOD?

[Wotan]

It will be useful for ToD, but so would a lot of bombers. Not that I care, bomber suck anyway.

However, the B24 is much loved and desired by a lot of folks and it does look great.

[TexMurphy]

My guess on a russian bomber was based on the fact that for ToD the russians need alot of love in the bomber department.

From that aspect seriously do we need another US bomber?

From the aspect of AH2:Classic isnt it booring to have sooo many US planes and soo few italian, russian and to some extent japanese planes?

That said it does look really nice... but then again by the standards of the Ki-84, the AH2 planes, they all will look good...

Tex

[Seagoon]

Well, I guessed right that it would be the B24 but please tell me we aren't getting the version without the dorsal turret! That would be a major bummer when dealing with overhead attacks.

Also...

I too was hoping we'd get a bomber from a less represented country, I was hoping for the HE111 personally, especially because I always find that BoB scenarios with just JU 87s & 88s are downright historically silly. I would love to have seen an Italian bomber for Med scenarios or a Russian one for the East Front or even the much needed Betty for the Pac.

But at present I think we have to realize that the MA rules and HTC is going to produce the planes people there want to fly. The Ki84 and the B24J are going to be massively popular planes in the MA, in fact I fully expect the 84 to become the new Nikki and for the B24J to become more popular than the B17. From a customer service point of view these planes just make more sense.

Oh, and you experten will have tons of fun for a few days racking up the perk points on the Dweebs trying to master the Ki84. I plan to resist the urge to fly one for several days.


- SEAGOON

[Westy]

I can see the upper turret. It's almost transparant but it is there just above and behind the cockpit area.

[Seagoon]

Oh yes, right you are... my bad.

Phew.

- SEAGOON

[United]

B-24J.  Its got 10 .50s, all in good positions.  You wont have much of a problem knocking anything out of the sky.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by United
B-24J.  Its got 10 .50s, all in good positions.  You wont have much of a problem knocking anything out of the sky.

It has ten .50s, but you will have trouble knocking stuff down.  Bombers, all bombers, have it a lot rougher now than they used to.  The B-24J's firepower will help, but it will still be at a disadvantage against any decent fighter.

[United]

Originally posted by Karnak
It has ten .50s, but you will have trouble knocking stuff down.  Bombers, all bombers, have it a lot rougher now than they used to.  The B-24J's firepower will help, but it will still be at a disadvantage against any decent fighter.

Thats what I get for not flying AHII.

Oh well, I'd give a B-24 a better chance at knocking down a fighter than the B-17, but thats just IMO.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by United
Oh well, I'd give a B-24 a better chance at knocking down a fighter than the B-17, but thats just IMO.

That may be, but I also give the fighter a better chance at downing the B-24.  The B-17 was so over built that it was significantly more durable.  It is likely that the Lancaster was also more durable.