We have alot of varients for Fighters.......why not Bombers?

[Beefcake]

The 109 has 4 different models, the SPIT has 3, the Hog has 2, and the P47 has 2. I'm sure there is another but I think I forgot.   Anyway why not put in some different variants of bombers? I myself would like to see the B-17E, the model that was used most over Europe. Just take off the chin turret, move the Bombardier and Navigator guns to the sides, put in the RADIO Operators gun, and paint it in Olive Drab and BOOM there ya have it.   It also should be able to carry bombs (like 8-10kers). I also think one or two versions of the Ju88 are needed as well.

WHY do this you ask? To give bomber pilots, like me, a bigger selection. And also ANOTHER plus for you "I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ATTACK A BUFF" whiners, the B17E had a very limited forward armament, which means you have a rather good chance to HO one and live.

What is your take on this? I know a few of you are pushing for that A-26  

[SpitLead]

Not a bad idea Beefcake. But, due to the limited coding resources, I'd almost rather have new medium bombers and attack planes like:  The Betty, B-25, Dornier 217, A20 Havoc, IL2 Sturmnovik, etc.  Another Heavy bomber would add some nice variety as well, like the B-24 Liberator which was actually built in more numbers than the B-17.

[Midnight]

Your own words says it all Beefcake. Altough having more types of bombers might be good, not many will fly one with less armament unless it is a senario.

------------------
"Wing up, Get kills, Be happy"

Midnight
13th TAS

"I see you have made your decision. Now let's see you enforce it." -Brandon Lee (The Crow)

[funked]

Beef you are thinking of the B-17F.  I'd love to see that one.

There are also a lot of variants of the Ju 88 that would be useful.  That plane was used as a level bomber, dive bomber, torpedo bomber, tank killer, night fighter, day fighter, photo recon, you name it!

B-26 had some variants but the changes were pretty minor.

I don't know much about Lancasters.

I sure hope we get a B-25 or A-20 soon!

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 02-10-2001).]

[Fishu]

Yup.. B-17E was least used over europe  

[Vermillion]

Well, my explanation may or may not effect varients of bombers to some degree, but it certain explains why we have less bombers.

Look at the art resources, and realize what it takes to make a bomber.

For each gun position that the bomber has, that is effectively the amount of time it takes to construct a single fighter. FYI its the interior/cockpit art that takes the most time (at least as it was explained to me).

For example in the time it takes to make a B26 type bomber, you could have approximately 4-6 fighters. Not exactly, but close enough.

Next new bomber should be a Japanese bomber. Either the P1Y3 "Frances" or the Ki67 "Peggy" IMO

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

[Jimdandy]

I do think that the next bomber should be something Axis. I would like to see the He 177. It wouldn't be a perk even. I know it wasn't the greatest bomber but it would give the Axis a Heavy bomber. It would carry 13,228 lb's of bombs and had a top speed of 303 mph. A G4M Betty would be cool too. It wasn't a true heavy bomber but it was a heavy by Japanese standards and fairly well armed. Or even a Kawanishi H6K. It was a flying-boat but it could carry a 4,400lb bomb load. Flying boats would be kind of cool on here. The next after that for should be a B-24. It's a big gap in the scenery on AH. There were certainly enough of them in WWII to justify it.

PS Trivia: Gene Rodenburry (Star Trek, I butchered the spelling I imagine.   ) was a B-24 pilot. Something you don't hear about him very much.

[Major Tom]

Let’s get some of those early clip winged B-26B's that cruised at 270, easy.  Yahoo!  You can't fly on one engine, but who cares, you can barely fly on one engine anyway.  Technically they didn't come with the straffer packs, technically    You don't see many combat camera films of luftweenies making HO runs on B-26B formations...  The very first B-26B's had a ventral gun ala the Avenger and the B-26 could carry torpedoes to!

The B-17E was fast bomber, cruised at 220+mph, only carried 4200lb of bombs though, armament was your basic top turret, standard tailguns setup (iron sight), ball turret, two waist guns and a gun in the nose.  There where some on base modifications that added noseguns, mostly in the PTO.  Fortunately the lack of nose armament will hardly be noticeable because HTC doesn't include blind spots on the B-17  

B-25H-5... can we say fleet hunt?  I'd like to try that 75mm out on a big ugly fat Lancaster or B-17G.

A-20? Depends on the version!  The lower you go in the alphabet the faster you cruise    G models panned out at 256 mph level.  The first ones could nearly get to 300!

Speed is everything in a bomber.  If you don't have speed you had better have lots of guns and be porked for gameplay purposes.

An A-26 would be nice, it would have to be a little bit of a perk though.  Anything that was made in 1944, can point 16 .50's at you head on, at least 2 .50's from any other direction and cruises at 280 is... uber.  The B-25H-5 is not uber because it was made in 1943 and only has a decent speed for a bomber, 230mph.

   

   

Reach out and plink someone... and the person next to him!

PS, Ohka carrying Betty bombers, or not, bring em on, the 20mm tail gun is deterence enough.  He.177 was a right nice plane when it wasn't on fire.

[This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 02-19-2001).]

[Fishu]

At least let me have that MG FF on my Ju 88 A4....

[juzz]

Nah, what you really want is a Ju 188A-2! 323mph, MG 151/20 nose and upper turret, MG 131 dorsal and ventral guns. And you're just as likely to get it too!