B-29 Super Fortress

[stealth]

     

I can guarantee you that Nagasaki and Hiroshima had more than..."say 4 or 8 city blocks" vaporized off of this Earth.    Spend more time working on sentence structure and less time on a plane that does not belong in this game.

Yes but what am I gonna say have a 1 bomb take out the hole city.When it takes B17 and B24 dozens of bombs to destroy the city.

[1carbine]

I think there should be a b29 on the late war arenas. I twould need a high perk, but maybe have a nuke for a bomb load

No nukes it's hard to take a base when it's radioactive.
earthquake bomb for the lanc would be nice though.
and keep all the guns on the B-29 it doesn't have any more guns on it in real life then the B-17.
On the boeing website it states for the B- 17
"Armament: 11 to 13 machine guns, 9,600-pound bomb load",
and for the B-29
"Armament: 12 .50-caliber machine guns, 1 20 mm cannon, 20,000-pound bomb load",
same amount of guns just one is a cannon.

[Denholm]

Same number of guns? Maybe. Same firepower? HECK NO! This plane blows plenty of things out of proportion. All this has been explained previously.

[Nemisis]

But you have to remember, bombers aren't too terribly dangerous if you don't do anything stupid, and provided 999000 isn't gunning.

[321BAR]

But you have to remember, bombers aren't too terribly dangerous if you don't do anything stupid, and provided 999000 isn't gunning.

my zero can still beat his gunmanship 

[kingcobradude]

I say put it in the game without gunners

[Nemisis]

We can't screw with the rules for no good reason beyond lessening the impact of a plane.


My reason for adding it are as follows:

1) We have a 262, and a 163 (the latter saw less use than the B-29 by far), so we're taken care of for interceptors (if you really feel threatened by the B-29, you can up a 163, use 1/4 fuel to climb/accelerate to a good gliding level, and glide to the forward bases)

2) We have the Ta-152 and P-47M/N for when they're super high (30K +) and away from the 163 enabled bases.

3) Just about every other fighter we have can deal with them when low (even the P-40B provided its packing some alt and speed).

4) You're all paranoid, thinking that if its perked at 400 or so, there will be way more than there are 262's. The tiger is perked at less than 50 usually, and yet you see relatively few of them comared to M4's and T-34/85's. Another example is the Tempest, perked relatively low, and yet there are fewer of them in each tour as opposed to most other rides.

5) You're over estimating its impact on the game as far as its survivability goes. Its still a bomber, and unless someones asleep at the switch, they aren't going to get through.

[Motherland]

But you have to remember, bombers aren't too terribly dangerous if you don't do anything stupid, and provided 999000 isn't gunning.

Big words from someone who doesn't have a positive K/D ratio against any bomber beside the Lancaster.

[Denholm]

In regards to the B-29's use, you yourself know every squeaker, teen and adult knows what a B-29 is, what it did, and how "superior" it was. You really think they won't try to use it for the sake of recreating history?

[Nemisis]

I do think they will try to use it, but that most will use it poorly. Bomber perks aren't too terribly hard to come by as you earn perks regardless of weather or not you land (usually). That means that the pilot skill doesn't have to be good to get perks. A newb just plugging away could earn enough perks for a B-29 given enough time.


Motherland, I'm usually in a hurry when hunting buffs (I don't go out hunting them specificly), and so I don't usually have time to set up a good attack. If lancs near a base about to plaster hangers, then I'll just go in and tear them up, and when my ammo is gone (if it is), I'll try to knock a wing off by ramming them.

[oakranger]

                                                                     

                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^WARNING!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^RAM TRAD APPROACHING!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Nemisis]

I will if they're bombers, and I don't really care what you have to say on the matter. For me, if I knock one down and save a fight, then its worth it.

[oakranger]

I will if they're bombers, and I don't really care what you have to say on the matter. For me, if I knock one down and save a fight, then its worth it.

What are the chances of taking one down by ramming vs you dying trying?

[Nemisis]

IDK the exact odds, but I'm guessing its around 5-1. But concidering I don't usually make it back to a base, I figure if I knock half its wing off, he can't bomb with that plane, so he has to bail, lessening the damage he can do.

[321BAR]

                                                                     

                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^WARNING!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^RAM TARD APPROACHING!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

fixed. btw, only two nukes were used in the war. along with the fact that with the destruction we created using conventional warfare in WWII these two nukes only created (what was it?) 1:100th of the destruction throughout the war by the allies in europe alone?