Author Topic: B24d (Read 1101 times)

Raptor · « **Reply #15 on:** December 10, 2005, 11:35:39 PM »

Catalina would fit in well in the CT and SEA come Pacific scenarios. What I think would be fun to mess around with is the B24D with a single fixed gun in the nose, B24 fights (in the DA and a few occasions in the MA) using only the single fixed gun. It also looks better with the glass nose IMO. I don't see why they wouldn't add an early B24 Krusty, they were used alongside B17, though the B17 would be more preferable because of durability.
Only difference in modeling a B17G into an F would be the removal of the chin gun.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #16 on:** December 11, 2005, 12:45:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raptor01
Catalina would fit in well in the CT and SEA come Pacific scenarios. What I think would be fun to mess around with is the B24D with a single fixed gun in the nose, B24 fights (in the DA and a few occasions in the MA) using only the single fixed gun. It also looks better with the glass nose IMO. I don't see why they wouldn't add an early B24 Krusty, they were used alongside B17, though the B17 would be more preferable because of durability.
Only difference in modeling a B17G into an F would be the removal of the chin gun.

It all depends on the starting time frame for ToD. The majority of B24 groups came overseas with B24H models with the nose turret. Only 3 of the 14 groups had D models and those ended up being sent to North Africa for Ploesti etc. Upon their return their replacement aircraft were Hs then Js etc.

All the MTO 15th AF B24 Groups came equipped with turret nosed Hs to start too. MTO 17 groups, started with Fs then Gs.

As for the Pac, they were quick to add turrets to the noses of their D models.

I don't think it would be worth the effort to model a glass nose D when the majority of the B24 groups had turret nosed Hs to begin with or were modified Ds with nose turrets.

There were many more groups that flew 17s that started with F models however so that might make more sense. You could still find B17Fs flying into 44. Even with that said, groups like the 447th as an example, came overseas in late 43 with G models. Even then, taking the time to model the F when the G was the dominant model from late 43 on doesn't really make sense either in terms of resources when there are other birds that need to be updated as well for ToD.

Krusty · « **Reply #17 on:** December 11, 2005, 01:10:10 AM »

B17F had a different nose yes. I don't know if the gun fired by the bombadier was a 30cal or not (to save room, maybe) but the chin gun did not exist, and I think the cheek guns were different, or absent (I'm not sure). We'd lose the cheyenne tail and get a more limitd zone of fire out the butt, which would be cool when attacking b17Fs lol

Guppy35 · « **Reply #18 on:** December 11, 2005, 01:46:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
B17F had a different nose yes. I don't know if the gun fired by the bombadier was a 30cal or not (to save room, maybe) but the chin gun did not exist, and I think the cheek guns were different, or absent (I'm not sure). We'd lose the cheyenne tail and get a more limitd zone of fire out the butt, which would be cool when attacking b17Fs lol

Keep in mind, almost immediately they put 50s in the nose of the F model. Either single 50s or twin 50s in mounts braced into the nose. The cheek guns initially were in flat panal large windows, but soon were the bulged windows that were kept on the G model.

Understand that initially the G model dispensed with the cheek guns, only to bring them back. First deliveries to the 8th had only the nose turret and no cheeck guns.

So which F do you want? Flat windows-single 50 in nose, bulged windows-single 50 in nose, flat windows twin 50s mounted together in nose, two 50s in the nose flad windows, etc etc.

And do we ask for the early G with no cheek guns?

What about Tokyo tanks in the F or do we go with the earlier no Tokyo tank version? Lots of questions to answer on that if we add the F

frank3 · « **Reply #19 on:** December 11, 2005, 01:22:38 PM »

Wow, I've actually never seen anything like that twin-braced mount!

Personally, I find the guns in the side (not cheek mounts) much better, they have a much better visibility and a much smarter range of fire.

Raptor · « **Reply #20 on:** December 11, 2005, 01:33:11 PM »

Single .50 in nose w/ cheek mounts. Twin 50s would have it too close to the G, anything less would have it too under armored.
Of course we would probably have to go with the bulged cheek mounts, without them we would have to add 2 more gunner positions due to the fact that in the flat window; they had different angles/firing views that could not be justified with a single gun position's range.

Krusty · « **Reply #21 on:** December 11, 2005, 02:21:51 PM »

Negative on adding 2 more gunner posiitons -- we have the same guns in the G, adn we don't have positions for them. All guns train on the same spot, wherever the player is aiming at. They'd just work the same way they do now, but I think they'd angle forward less.

frank3 · « **Reply #22 on:** December 11, 2005, 02:49:08 PM »

Would be nice to have the cheek guns operated seperately from the chin-turret position. We could use 9 & 0 for this I think.

You won't be able to open the map though, for your navigator will be busy firing!

Raptor · « **Reply #23 on:** December 11, 2005, 04:14:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
Negative on adding 2 more gunner posiitons -- we have the same guns in the G, adn we don't have positions for them. All guns train on the same spot, wherever the player is aiming at. They'd just work the same way they do now, but I think they'd angle forward less.

With flat windows for the guns they are not positioned facing forward, so they have a different range of what they would be able to shoot. Might as well not even include cheek mounted guns if you guide them using the single nose .50 cal.

Klum25th · « **Reply #24 on:** December 15, 2005, 06:25:45 PM »

I like the Shiela B. Cummin nose. Like it how theres 2 front guns together then theres 2 cheek guns up close. I think those wouldnt have to have another gunner position because they could probly shoot in almost the same areas.

Krusty · « **Reply #25 on:** December 15, 2005, 08:56:11 PM »

I think the point of the F, should we get one, would be a weaker, less capable model, which would suggest lesser forward armament. I'm for the single 50cal centrally placed in the plexiglass. The one with 2 separate 50cals presents a problem -- you could only fire one or the other, but in AH all guns fire at the same time if they cover that "zone".

P.S. The cheek guns aren't entirely useless. They can be aimed from the ball turret or the dorsal, and depending on the angle (if you're aimed forward enough) the waist positions. Small boost, but a boost in firepower regardless.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #26 on:** December 15, 2005, 10:48:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
I think the point of the F, should we get one, would be a weaker, less capable model, which would suggest lesser forward armament. I'm for the single 50cal centrally placed in the plexiglass. The one with 2 separate 50cals presents a problem -- you could only fire one or the other, but in AH all guns fire at the same time if they cover that "zone".

P.S. The cheek guns aren't entirely useless. They can be aimed from the ball turret or the dorsal, and depending on the angle (if you're aimed forward enough) the waist positions. Small boost, but a boost in firepower regardless.

There were those that thought the F with the single mounted 50 was more capable then the G model as the performance was better and the benefit of the chin turret was not that great an increase vs the performance loss.

Problem is how do you decide which is the most usual version? That was the point of posting the images. Lots of variations on the F.

frank3 · « **Reply #27 on:** December 16, 2005, 02:43:02 AM »

To get back on topic (the B-24!) I would like to see a different nose for the B-24, although this will ever happen...it would only be a matter of changing the current plane, instead of on intirely different model!

Klum25th · « **Reply #28 on:** December 16, 2005, 04:23:44 PM »

I dont think the B24 had a different type of nose. I think the B24A-D models had the nose from the top of the page. The B24J is the only bomber with a different type of nose, with the all moving thingy nose like the lancaster.

Did they get the J model nose and tail from the Lancaster?

Guppy35 · « **Reply #29 on:** December 17, 2005, 02:01:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Klum25th
I dont think the B24 had a different type of nose. I think the B24A-D models had the nose from the top of the page. The B24J is the only bomber with a different type of nose, with the all moving thingy nose like the lancaster.

Did they get the J model nose and tail from the Lancaster?

B24D models were the first to get a nose turret when some in the field mods were done in the Pacific where tail turrets from wrecked 24s were fitted to the nose. This was done on many D models.

D models modified on the production line with tail turrets in the nose were redesignated B24Es.

The B24H was the first large production run to come off the line with a nose turret.

The J obviously followed the H with other variants after this including Ls, Ms, & Ns.

Many of the B24 combat units in Europe came over with B24Hs.

No the idea wasn't from the Lancaster. It was the addition of a tail turret to the nose that did the trick

Top image is a B24D modified in the Pacific with a tail turret in the nose.

Bottom image is a 454th BG B24H with the more common Emerson nose turret.

There were production Hs, Js, etc with the tail turret style in the nose as well.