B-29 Super Fortress

[sethipus]

Keep in mind that a big limiting factor in how the B-29 would be used is if it were base-restricted, similar to how the ME-163 is base-restricted.  Nobody can deny that the ME-163 is an holy terror to any bombers that approach the HQ.  It's godlike, and really nothing can touch it.  But it's not generally available everywhere, so that's fine.

If the B-29 had to take off from either a zone base (a little closer to the front) or even the HQ bases, then missions with the B-29 would take a lot of time.  That in itself would be a limiting factor to how much it's used, because most pilots in this game don't have the patience for a long bombing mission.  And many of those who have the patience, don't have the interest.

So if a guy wants to take off from a zone base 4 sectors away from his target, fly up with 25k or whatever, drop a metric crapload of bombs on a strat target, then spend another 30 or 40 minutes flying back, then let him.  Who's it hurting?

And, limited this way, the B-29 couldn't be used like a Lancstuka for bombing tanks, unless of course it's the zone base under attack, and the Lancstuka driver has some perkies to spare.

Seriously, the B-29 was used in WWII enough to meet the criteria, there are valid use cases for it, and, properly limited, it doesn't have to unbalance the game or anything.  And it gives the guys who love to fly bombers around one more arrow in their quiver.  And yes, there are people who pay their $15 a month to fly bombers around.  It doesn't really matter whether any given individual who posts in this thread likes doing that or not - there are customers who pay every bit as much to play this game as anyone else, who do.

Bring on the B-29, skip the nuke.  Let the organized, high-altitude B-29 missions begin. 

[shotgunneeley]

Here's what I think about the b-29:

(Note: I tried my best to list the pro's and con's of each idea. Don't take it as me being uncapable of making up my mind.  )

1.) B-29 should be available at large airfields only. Being only available at the uncapturable bases near the HQ's seems a little extreme and would isolate the b-29 from the front lines. Being available at every airfield also seems a little too convenient since the b-29 is such a large, heavy bomber it would take more runway and a substantial amount of airfield to take off (i.e., small and medium airfield are just too small to handle a bird the size of the b-29).

2.) the B-29 had a "Central Fire Control System" (CFCS) which employed the use of a four General Electric analog computers. The CFCS would compute the the B-29's airspeed, the target's speed, target lead, gravity, temperature, barrel wear, and humidity; thus giving the defensive .50 cals of the superfortress twice the range of the manual guns in its predecessor, the b-17. In AH, the guns could be calibrated similar to the way the bombsight is calibrated, but with the target changing velocity at an inconsistent rate I can't imagine how this is practical; though somehow in real life they did it.

3.) all bomb loadouts should be available except for the A-bomb of course. The b-29 carried a standard loadout of 20,000 pounds of ordinance. Modifications could be made to allow two external 22,000 pound "grand slam" bombs. Incendiary bombs should definitely be an option as the B-29 was widely known for carrying out night time/ low alt Fire bombing raids of Japanese cities and other strategic targets.

4.) formations allowed. This should be allowed because although the B-29 had a very advanced CFCS to defend itself from attacking fighters, it wasn't enough to completely protect itself from incoming fighters (especially ones that intended to ram the bomber). In real life, the b-29 combat ceiling and speed was its best defense. It was designed for high alt missions and could reach an altitude (it had a combat ceiling of 33,600 feet and a rate of climb of 900 ft/min) of 40,000 feet and a true air speed of 350 MPH; thus making the threat of fighter attacks unlikely and AA-fire almost impossible since the axis AA batteries did not have proximity fuses.

5.) When first introduced, the b-29 used four Wright R-3350 engines that were without a doubt a maintenance headache and were prone to causing catastrophic failures. Maybe in AH a random error (however small) could be designed to cause any of the four engines to suddenly seize up and stop. This could be one more factor that would limit the b-29's feared "uber" effectiveness; although, I know that I would be very upset if I lost my several hundred perk plane due to a random design flaw outside of my control.



source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-29

[ScottyK]

When u search for perk points/perked planes on the main  the main page isnt the B 29 LISTED as a perked ride?

[E25280]

When u search for perk points/perked planes on the main  the main page isnt the B 29 LISTED as a perked ride?

No, it is listed as an example of the type of plane that would be perk-worthy, because availability in unlimited numbers would be unbalancing to gameplay.

[Plazus]

Keep in mind that a big limiting factor in how the B-29 would be used is if it were base-restricted, similar to how the ME-163 is base-restricted.  Nobody can deny that the ME-163 is an holy terror to any bombers that approach the HQ.  It's godlike, and really nothing can touch it.  But it's not generally available everywhere, so that's fine.

If the B-29 had to take off from either a zone base (a little closer to the front) or even the HQ bases, then missions with the B-29 would take a lot of time.  That in itself would be a limiting factor to how much it's used, because most pilots in this game don't have the patience for a long bombing mission.  And many of those who have the patience, don't have the interest.

So if a guy wants to take off from a zone base 4 sectors away from his target, fly up with 25k or whatever, drop a metric crapload of bombs on a strat target, then spend another 30 or 40 minutes flying back, then let him.  Who's it hurting?

And, limited this way, the B-29 couldn't be used like a Lancstuka for bombing tanks, unless of course it's the zone base under attack, and the Lancstuka driver has some perkies to spare.

Seriously, the B-29 was used in WWII enough to meet the criteria, there are valid use cases for it, and, properly limited, it doesn't have to unbalance the game or anything.  And it gives the guys who love to fly bombers around one more arrow in their quiver.  And yes, there are people who pay their $15 a month to fly bombers around.  It doesn't really matter whether any given individual who posts in this thread likes doing that or not - there are customers who pay every bit as much to play this game as anyone else, who do.

Bring on the B-29, skip the nuke.  Let the organized, high-altitude B-29 missions begin. 

Amen I say to you... I would very much like a B29 in the game. Not for nuke purposes but for the pure joy of flying one. Im an avid B17 pilot and I hold high respects for the folks who spend time bombing in a realistic sort of manner. Realistic meaning that they spend that extra 5-10 minutes climbing to 20+ and hitting strategic targets and using combat tactics to exploit their targets.

[sethipus]

Just for the record, as much as I support the idea of the B-29 in the game, if I had to choose, I'd rather see the HE-111 in the game first.  I'm a big fan of scenarios and FSO, and whether the HE-111 would get flown all that much in the LW arenas or not, for these scenarios, snapshots, and FSO, it would really open up a lot of opportunities.  The Battle of Britain scenario, for example, would be a lot more challenging for the Germans if they were flying HE-111s, than it is with them flying the JU-88.  And we all know the Brits need all the help they can get in that scenario.  ;-)

[JETBLST]

Amen I say to you... I would very much like a B29 in the game. Not for nuke purposes but for the pure joy of flying one. Im an avid B17 pilot and I hold high respects for the folks who spend time bombing in a realistic sort of manner. Realistic meaning that they spend that extra 5-10 minutes climbing to 20+ and hitting strategic targets and using combat tactics to exploit their targets.

Keep in mind you can go a lot lot higher than the 20s in the 17s.  I did a deep strike once 5 sectors into enemy territory while threading the needle.  (Radar Rings) and took down and enemy city all by my lonesome over 3 missions.  I did it for the fun of it and I too do like bombing strats.  The B-29 would make this much more fun.  The Lancs are ok but just do not perform well.  Hence they are used as they are.  Even when you can get higher up in Lancs they really are tough to get in the upper levels.  Then when joe bomber avenger sees they are Lancs you are sure to be engaged and shot down.  Sometimes when a person sees you are in a 17 or 24 they simply go find an easier target.  A 29 would be awesome for said reasons here.

[FYB]

I generally see no problem with the 29 being added in AH, the modeling and airfields are about the only thing that highly concern most. Making larger, and longer fields is something that can be fixed on the bases 1 sector away from the restricted airfields that are used to up 163's in case of an HQ attack.

Giving its full payload is something one airfield out of hundreds has to deal with. I'm completely sure no B-29 pilot would do that twice in a row; unless its someone who has many hours to climb up, up, up, level, bomb, climb down, down, down, and do that all over again.

Nuke is still an acceptable bomb, give it a 3 per country and reduce the radius so that its only capable of taking out the base. 24 hour period for the 3 nukes to be reset, no mounting of nuke bomb numbers, if the country doesn't use the 3 bombs, it won't mount to 6, it will stay at 3.

-FYB

[Lye-El]

Sometimes when a person sees you are in a 17 or 24 they simply go find an easier target.  A 29 would be awesome for said reasons here.

That says something about Bombers in AH right there. The 8th Air Force should have had nothing to fear about enemy fighters. One flight of 3 bombers and the fighters go find some fighters to attack and leave the bombers alone.

[Rich46yo]

Forget the nukes, well maybe for a scenerio.

Bring in the B-29 and make it so that only a few major bases can operate them. As one side wins and wins, like when the Bish are doing their  horde thing, would push the action farther and farther from B-29 bases which would translate into less use 29 by the winning side.

Not that a whole lot have the patience to fly a 29 the way it should be. Most will rise to 15k and then run with it, making it just another bomber set at low Alt. And imagine a gaggle of 15yos in 190s and Mustangs seeing B-29s at 12k ? It would be like "Free blood day" at the Vampire convention. Perked 100 to 150 apiece will prevent a lot the bomb and bailing we already see, and nobody is going to upp them for CVs because their bases will be to far away and CVs are already killed easily with existing bombers. Ones that can be upped far closer to the CV already.

I would bet most B-29 runs would be made by dedicated bomber squads flying against strats, or at least squads wanting to try something different. Many would probably fly them one at a time.

It would be a great addition and would increase legitimate heavy bomber operations while cutting back on some of the bomber dweebery we see in the MAs now.

[caldera]

The nook would be interesting for scenario use. Say two B-29s get the nook and the rest convential loadouts. The only way to win would be by hitting the HQ with a nuke. This would only generate incessant whining for it in the MA and probably why it won't happen. I can see no reason why the B-29 shouldn't be in the game, unless the coding for the turrets can't be figured out. I would like to see Russian, Japanese, German and even Italian bombers. The more planes, the better.


edit: Unlike the P-39 and B-25C, the B-29 would be used. HTC can't be happy that all the work they did to implement those two planes resulted in such little usage. Anyone seen "the League of Airacobra Pilots" flying lately?

[trigger2]

I believe the F117 has no gun making intercept moot.

Why would you want to use a gun on a b-29? With all those bombs in it, you'd go down in the secondary! That's what the laser guided bombs are for!


And on topic...

Why would you want clowns in the game?



And I'll repost this one... simply because it's true...


If you do get the b-29, can it only be enabled on CV's? Not changing the CV length that is.

[USRanger]

The runways in AH are 1 mile long.  They cannot be made longer, as they are the same distance end to end of a terrain grid square.  Objects (such as runways) cannot cross over a grid line, or they do not work properly and are not allowed when building a terrain.  I seriously doubt they would entirely redo the terrain making system just to add one uber plane.  Plus, it cannot fit inside the bomber hanger, another prerequisite.  Oh let me guess, y'all want em to redo the bomber hangers then too.  For one plane....

 

[StokesAk]

This may be a noob question, but where do you get the B29 animation?

[AWwrgwy]

B-29 and the Nook:

Operation Silverplate:

USAAF sent instructions to its Army Air Forces Materiel Command at Wright Field, Ohio, on November 30, 1943, for a highly-classified B-29 modification project. The Manhattan Project would deliver full-sized mockups of the weapons shapes to Wright Field by mid-December, where AAFMC would modify an aircraft and deliver it for use in bomb flight testing at Muroc Army Air Field, California.

B-29-5-BW 42-6259 (referred to as the "Pullman airplane" from an internal code name assigned it by the Engineering Division of AAF Materiel Command) was delivered to the 468th Bomb Group at Smoky Hill AAB, Kansas on November 30, 1943, and flown to Wright Field, Ohio, on December 2. Modifications to the bomb bays were extensive and time-consuming. Its four 12-foot bomb bay doors and the fuselage section between the bays were removed and a single 33-foot bomb bay configured (the length of the gun-type shape was approximately seventeen feet). New bomb suspensions and bracing were attached for both shape types, with the gun-type suspension anchored in the aft bomb bay (although its length protruded into the forward bay) and the implosion type mounted in the forward bay. Separate twin-release mechanisms were mounted in each bay, using modified glider tow-cable attach-and-release mechanisms. To document the tests, motion picture camera mounts were installed in the rear bay.

The modifications were made using the dummy bomb shapes as models, and the gun-type shape (code-named Thin Man) proved to be a very close fit. All modifications were made by hand and the process required more than 6000 man-hours of labor which could not be completed until February. Engine problems systemic to the B-29 delayed delivery of the Pullman B-29 for flight testing until February 20, 1944.

(Yeeesss, I copied it from wiki )

Modified for the bomb to fit.  In the event that a B-29 would be added, I doubt a modified B-29 would be added.





wrongway