B-29 Super Fortress

[glock89]

Solution:  designate the b29 to the back fields just like 163.  design longer runways and bigger hangers.  perk the heck out of it just like 262

And yet it would still be unfair.

[whiteman]

I don't think so, how many bases would it be at 1 or 2. if you see a dar bar growing back there you should have a clue to keep an eye on that dar bar.

what's unfair?

Now the B-29 is not on my list of planes i want. more Japanese fighters, Pe-2, Tu-2, Betty, He-111 and A26 are on my list of wants.

[glock89]

I don't think so, how many bases would it be at 1 or 2. if you see a dar bar growing back there you should have a clue to keep an eye on that dar bar.

what's unfair?

Now the B-29 is not on my list of planes i want. more Japanese fighters, Pe-2, Tu-2, Betty, He-111 and A26 are on my list of wants.

The B-29 is just to damn big and so powerful we don't need a super bomber. We need EW planes we don't need more American planes to be added we need more Axis or Russias planes to be added.

[Chalenge]

Powerful? Ha! A lancaster carries nearly the same ordinance. The B29 has more guns but already we know guns dont save bombers unless its a dead six attack and then its usually a 1:1 loss. It would be 'unfair' if the nuke were added but thats not likely to happen. I dont think you would have to push it back to the rear areas even but I do think everyone over rates this airplane.

[glock89]

Powerful? Ha! A lancaster carries nearly the same ordinance. The B29 has more guns but already we know guns dont save bombers unless its a dead six attack and then its usually a 1:1 loss. It would be 'unfair' if the nuke were added but thats not likely to happen. I dont think you would have to push it back to the rear areas even but I do think everyone over rates this airplane.

We don't need the B-29 now we need other planes to be added before.

[Chalenge]

Well its not a democracy and only HTC can say one way or the other. They might give you a vote eventually but you will only get one vote. 

[glock89]

Well its not a democracy and only HTC can say one way or the other. They might give you a vote eventually but you will only get one vote. 

[Saxman]

Then again, the B-29 could cruise at altitude almost as fast as some fighters....

[VansCrew1]

Dang! I can't believe I missed this.

And this.

[Rich46yo]

a B29 doesn't fit in the bomber hangar, and it can't take off from our runways.

Not to mention the WWII version was really imprecise and had to be used from mid alts to hit anything. (I feel stupid repeating this for the Nth time)

As compared to the other bombers in the game? Or from actual history? Oh noes, dont feel stupid.

The B29 flew in only one theater (against Japan)

Actually so did the Japanese planes in the game, "only fly in one theatre". So did some of the USN planes, for all practical purposes.

Yet this fantasy still surfaces about how the B-29 was a "bit player", unlike the ME-262, 163, AR-234, KI-67, all of which must have leveled entire nations to be included, "heck we only made 4,000 29s during the war". And every other level bomber in WW-ll?? Very, very precise unlike the B-29.

[Bronk]

Not to mention the WWII version was really imprecise and had to be used from mid alts to hit anything. (I feel stupid repeating this for the Nth time)

IIRC was because of the jet stream and not the inaccuracies of the plane.

[caldera]

a B29 doesn't fit in the bomber hangar, and it can't take off from our runways.

Not to mention the WWII version was really imprecise and had to be used from mid alts to hit anything. (I feel stupid repeating this for the Nth time)

I believe the reason the B-29s were imprecise at high alt was due to something called "The Jet Stream".  I'm paraphrasing, but basically the jet stream was high wind "currents" that were previously unknown and knocked the bombs farther off course than usual. Any bomber dropping from high altitude over Japan would be equally imprecise.

Do we really need the B-29? No, but we don't need the 262 either. 


Damn. somebody beat me to it. 

[Babalonian]

I believe the reason the B-29s were imprecise at high alt was due to something called "The Jet Stream".  I'm paraphrasing, but basically the jet stream was high wind "currents" that were previously unknown and knocked the bombs farther off course than usual. Any bomber dropping from high altitude over Japan would be equally imprecise.

Do we really need the B-29? No, but we don't need the 262 either. 


Damn. somebody beat me to it. 

I think jet streams were just being discovered and figured out during the time of WWII.  Before WWII there isn't much on them, after the war they were trying to understand it more.  One shining example off the top of my head are the Japaneese Fire Balloons ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_balloon ).

...The balloons were intended to make use of a strong current of winter air that the Japanese had discovered flowing at high altitude and speed over their country, which later became known as the jet stream.

The jet stream blew at altitudes above 9.15 kilometers (30,000 ft) and could carry a large balloon across the Pacific in three days, over a distance of more than 8,000 km (5,000 mi). Such balloons could carry incendiary and high-explosive bombs to the United States and drop them there to kill people, destroy buildings, and start forest fires....

[Noir]

thanks for the info

[Masherbrum]

We have the Ta-152 which was designed to specifically intercept the "possible" B-29's being brought into the ETO.