Fyv's Missing Bombers list

[fyvsix]

The A-36 wasn't a bomber, it was an early attack version of the Mustang.




ack-ack

I know ak, but I included it as an interesting attack plane used in the med and china.

[Banshee7]

The A-36 wasn't a bomber, it was an early attack version of the Mustang.


(Image removed from quote.)


ack-ack

one beautiful aircraft....err....that thing doesnt have 2 engines!!! 

[Guppy35]

I always get a kick out of the nuker's using that as the reason for no 29............ In 2 years of service during the war, the B29 dropped tens of thousands of bombs........... Only 2, by the way, were Atomic.  You probably all know their names too! 

Now for you bomber hanger size people............. Trivia question:

What percentage of WWII aircraft were kept in hangers? 
What percentage of American bombers did not fit in the south Pacific hangers at US Army Air Corp bases?
Can anybody on the board find a photo of a B29 sitting in a hanger during the war?

Now for you strip people..... During the war it was not uncommon for the short runways of the south Pacific to cause Superfortress's to go into the ocean...  Go look for yourself downers!!!

Are there any other excuses not to have it?

June 5, 1944 first combat mission.  Not really two years of combat.

The issue isn't it's history.  It would be it's use.  Are you going to limit it to only the furthest bases?  Are you going to limit it to only certain altitudes? 

With the way the 4 engined heavies are used and abused in the MA right now, what good would the 29 do, other then to get people to grief the game even more?  3 B29s low alt to a carrier?  3 29s suiciding an airfield?  How would introducing the 29 make the game better?

[thndregg]

Yep...

Once we get the B-29 we we will be pounded with the nook requests.

...and many will dive-bomb with it.

[fyvsix]

I guess that's the problem guppy, I never play that way. I take off from a base in the rear and climb out to level bomb above 15k mostly. I can't help the retards who think just because the game allows them to do it then it's fine to dive bomb with lancs.

I usually hang out in AvA or mid war where it's a little better. I like to do as good as the next guy, but not by sacrificing the historic feel I get when I do thing properly. It's the same reason I don't like furballing, everything was about the mission, that's what I get into, the mission.

When I was in a bomb group in Warbirds we learned formations and flew missions every squad night. I'm not terribly motivated by scores, and have no respect for those who fly the "easy" ride because it's easy for them to score in the furball.

The B-29 aside, can we knock the nose turrets of the 17g and 24j to make a 17f and 24d? Imagine all the great skins!

Anyway, just my 2 cents

Fyv

[phatzo]

shouldn't you be flying an se5a 56
Addman

[fyvsix]

Oh no! Addman's on to my alter ego! Maybe if they wever fix the top gun. 

[SmokinLoon]

I'll give you credit for the He111, G4M Betty, and Wellington.  On the other hand a big "NO" to more B17 or B24 variants and an even bigger NOOO to the B29.  We have no need for it and most of us are already sick of the dive bombing hvy buffs we already have.  The US is well represented, I'd like to see many other more important bombers introduced vs the B29 (or any other US bomber).  Oh, and the Stirling?  Are you looking up the stats on these bombers before posting them?  The Stirling and the Lanc are twins.  We need to fill in the gaps.   

The G4M Betty would be just nasty to attack, a 20mm dorsal turret and a 20mm tail turret.  There wouldnt be any "pings" vs attacking fighters.   

The He111 needs to explantion as to why it needs to be added, imo.

The Soviets would put the IL-4 or Tu2 to good use.  The Pe-2 is quite weak compared to the IL-4 or Tu-2.  Im not sure why you left those 2 bombers out.

The Wellington is the UK's B26, comparatively.  With its 4500lb bomb load and 255 mph cruise at 12k alt, its 4/.30 cal rear turret it could prove quite useful in the MA.  In scenarios for sure.  It, along with the He111, G4M, and IL-4 all fill major gaps.

The Mossie B Mk16 would be a very welcomed addition to AH2.  It would be a fast bomber able to deliver 6/500lb of bombs faster than any other aircraft.  If AH2 allowed the pot bellied version to be added, it would certainly have to be perked for if the Mossie were able to carry the 4000lb cookie to target at 350mph+ the milk runners and the bomb-n-bail crowd would use nothing else.

Carry on.          

[Saxman]

On the other hand a big "NO" to more B17 or B24 variants...We have no need for it...

I disagree with this entirely, especially for outside the Mains.

Right now we have NO B-17 variant appropriate for the Pacific Theater, as the B-17G was only used in Europe. Additionally we don't even HAVE an early-war heavy bomber (our Lancaster is actually mid-war bird). The B-17D or F would be welcome additions for PTO scenarios and FSO setups (an early B-17 would have been interesting for the recent Midway FSO) and in the 1942-1943 period of the Allied bombing campaign in Europe--we can't even skin Memphis Belle because HTC won't accept her for the 17G. The B-24D would also be much more representative of the type for Pacific scenarios, as well as early-war scenarios like Ploesti.

Adding a less well-armed B-17 and B-24 wouldn't change the Mains all that much, but WOULD make a difference for AvA and scenarios.

[fyvsix]

I disagree with this entirely, especially for outside the Mains.

Right now we have NO B-17 variant appropriate for the Pacific Theater, as the B-17G was only used in Europe. Additionally we don't even HAVE an early-war heavy bomber (our Lancaster is actually mid-war bird). The B-17D or F would be welcome additions for PTO scenarios and FSO setups (an early B-17 would have been interesting for the recent Midway FSO) and in the 1942-1943 period of the Allied bombing campaign in Europe--we can't even skin Memphis Belle because HTC won't accept her for the 17G. The B-24D would also be much more representative of the type for Pacific scenarios, as well as early-war scenarios like Ploesti.

Adding a less well-armed B-17 and B-24 wouldn't change the Mains all that much, but WOULD make a difference for AvA and scenarios.

Salute Saxman! This man gets it! Especially considering that the existing forts and libs would not need a lot of work to be converted to an earlier model. I want the Belle! We have 2 p-40's, 2 B-25's, 2 p-39's, 2 ponies, 4 jugs, 2 zekes, 4 hogs, millions of 109's, 2 110's, etc... There were 3,405 B-17F's produced and 2,738 B-24D's. I say bring em on!

[uptown]

The A-36 wasn't a bomber, it was an early attack version of the Mustang.


(Image removed from quote.)


ack-ack

I knew a bomber pilot would catch that 

[Guppy35]

I disagree with this entirely, especially for outside the Mains.

Right now we have NO B-17 variant appropriate for the Pacific Theater, as the B-17G was only used in Europe. Additionally we don't even HAVE an early-war heavy bomber (our Lancaster is actually mid-war bird). The B-17D or F would be welcome additions for PTO scenarios and FSO setups (an early B-17 would have been interesting for the recent Midway FSO) and in the 1942-1943 period of the Allied bombing campaign in Europe--we can't even skin Memphis Belle because HTC won't accept her for the 17G. The B-24D would also be much more representative of the type for Pacific scenarios, as well as early-war scenarios like Ploesti.

Adding a less well-armed B-17 and B-24 wouldn't change the Mains all that much, but WOULD make a difference for AvA and scenarios.

Actually Saxman, I'd disagree on the B24D being representative for the Pacific, as they were quick to add the power turret to the nose so that one is covered by the B24 we have and they had far more of the later model 24s.  For Ploesti it would be a plus.

Midway would be a B17E as would the early Pac stuff.  Very little outside of Colin Kelly for a shark fin C or D, although it's a pretty bird.  In the end if HTC were to add another 17 the F would be the best bet as the 5th AF guys before they transitioned had Fs and obviously the MTO and ETO had F models.  I imagine the B17G and the B24J were the best compromise as they are 43-45 and cover the biggest time frame.

[Larry]

...can we knock the nose turrets of the 17g and 24j to make a 17f and 24d? Imagine all the great skins!

cough "Memphis Bell" cough




btw fyv check the jg54 forum when you get a chance I found a Gmodel you might like.

[Karnak]

...and many will dive-bomb with it.

Very few would dive bomb with it.

How many Ar234s are used in suicide dive bomb attacks?

It would be perked VERY heavily.

he Stirling and the Lanc are twins.  We need to fill in the gaps.   

You could argue that the Halifax and Lancaster are twins, and I'd agree, but the Stirling was certainly not.  We don't need it at all, but it was no Lancaster.

The G4M Betty would be just nasty to attack, a 20mm dorsal turret and a 20mm tail turret.  There wouldnt be any "pings" vs attacking fighters.

The 20mm cannons on the G4M are the same as the 20mm cannons on the A6M2.  They are nothing like as potent as the 20mm cannon on the Ki-67.  Sure, it would hurt to get hit by them, but not all that hard to avoid given their spectacularly poor muzzle velocity.  The G4M would also light up as it was a flying fuel tank, the fuel tanks being an integral part of the wing.  It is needed and badly, but lets not pretend it would fare better here than it did for the Japanese.

The He111 needs to explantion as to why it needs to be added, imo.

Like the G4M it would not do well here, but is needed.

The Soviets would put the IL-4 or Tu2 to good use.  The Pe-2 is quite weak compared to the IL-4 or Tu-2.  Im not sure why you left those 2 bombers out.

The Tu-2 was rare and only came in late.  Calling the Pe-2 weak compared to the Il-4 is baffling.  The Pe-2 was much better, if carrying a lighter war load.  All three should be added though.

The Wellington is the UK's B26, comparatively.  With its 4500lb bomb load and 255 mph cruise at 12k alt, its 4/.30 cal rear turret it could prove quite useful in the MA.  In scenarios for sure.  It, along with the He111, G4M, and IL-4 all fill major gaps.

Agreed, but the Wellington might, maybe do 255mph flat out at best altitude, with a bit of a tailwind.  And that is one reason I strongly advocate for it.  It is defended with useful turrets, but only .303s, it is tough as heck, carries a useful warload and is so slow that early war fighters can actually attack it like late war fighters attack B-17s and 24s.

The Mossie B Mk16 would be a very welcomed addition to AH2.  It would be a fast bomber able to deliver 6/500lb of bombs faster than any other aircraft.  If AH2 allowed the pot bellied version to be added, it would certainly have to be perked for if the Mossie were able to carry the 4000lb cookie to target at 350mph+ the milk runners and the bomb-n-bail crowd would use nothing else.

100% of Mosquito B.Mk XVI's were delivered from the factory with bulged bellies for the 4000lb 'cookie'.  There were B.Mk IVs and B.Mk IXs that were modified to carry them, but the B.Mk XVI was intended to from the very start.  I'd like to see the B.Mk XVI as a perk bomber, which it pretty clearly is along with the A-26 and B-29.  I think the G4M2, He111H-6, Il-4, Pe-2 and Wellington B.Mk III should all have higher priority.

For MA bombers I'd like to see the Tu-2, Ju188A-1, B-29A and Mosquito B.Mk XVI, but I think those are lower priority than the four mentioned above.  Other nice late war options are the He177A-5 Grief, P1Y1 Ginga "Frances", B7A2 Ryusei "Grace" and Il-10.

[stroker71]

You forgot the A-26 on your list!