the B24 Liberator : wise choice for upcoming bomber

[jpeg]

Originally posted by Karnak:
jpeg,

A Russian or Japanese C-47 would be much better than a Ju52 if you want an armed transport (I'm not even going to talk about an H8K4).

The Ju52 is more than 50mph slower than the C-47.

Personally I would never sacrifice 50mph for a single 7.92mm machinegun and if I were attacking a single 7.92mm machine gun isn't going to make a difference.

The Russian and Japanese versions of the C-47 are better armed than the Ju52 and slightly faster than the C-47.

OK cool, then i'd rather have one of those.
Anything is better then c47.

But make some suggestions, not just "russian versions".. hell i'd like to know the names too since i'm not up on my names of russian aircrafts

[Dowding]

jpeg - an example would be the Li-2.

 

"Russia imported 21 pre-war DC-3's and 2 unassembled air frames. Initially, Russia designated their home-built DC-3's, PS84 (Passazhirskii Samolet - Plant 84, near Moscow). On September 17th, 1942, Russia re-named them Li-2's after Boris P. Lisunov, the aeronautical engineer who supervised production in Santa Monica Plant, CA, for 2 years. The PS84 used the 900hp Shvetsov M-62 engine (developed from the licensed Wright SGR-1820F which powered the DC-2). The engine configuration gave the nacelles a narrower chord. Even after they upgraded the engines to 1200hp ASH-62, the nacelle shape remained close to the first models."

[Dowding]

Personally I'm not interested in seeing the He-177 at all. I much rather see the bomber destroyers, as Urchin points out.

And the Stuka (D and G versions), of course.  

[Karnak]

jpeg,

Here is the other:

Douglas L2D4 "Tabby"
 
Engines: Two Mitsubishi Kinsei 51 fourteen-cylinder air-cooled radials, rated at 1,300 hp for take-off and 1,200 hp at 3,000 m, driving three-blade metal propellers
Speed: 212 kt at 2,800 m
Armament: One flexible 13 mm Type 2 machine-gun and two 7.7 mm Type 92 machine-guns
Accommodation: Crew of three to five, and either 21 passengers (L2D1 to L2D5) or 4,500 kg of freight (L2D2-1 to L2D4-1)

[GRUNHERZ]

The B24 had bad handling, was difficult to fly in formation, set on fire much easier and was all around easier to kill than a B17. Although it outdid the B17 in nearly every performace category it was never trusted as the B17 was. Plus its often said to be very ugly, though I think it looks fine.

[Citabria]

the b24 had self sealing fuel tanks just like the b17.

the reason b24s had higher losses was not because they were more fragile, but because they flew at lower altitudes than the b17.


the b24 carried more bombs faster and further with comparable defensive armament to the b17

[ 11-03-2001: Message edited by: Citabria ]

[HoHun]

Hi Citabria,

>the reason b24s had higher losses was not because they were more fragile, but because they flew at lower altitudes than the b17.

The Luftwaffe pilots took it for granted that the B-24 withstood much less damage than the B-17. Here's one example from Reschke's "JG301/302":

"It was confirmed once more: A B-24 attacked with all the guns fell out of the sky quicker than a B-17 - one attack sufficed, and the Liberator impacted on the ground close to Lake Starnberg."

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[J_A_B]

"Largest holes? What hole is there that a B-24 fills? "

You're absolutely right Raub--there ISN'T any huge hole that the B-24 fills.

I even said that in an earlier post.

I feel ther biggest holes in AH are the lack of single and twin-engine attack aircraft, and early to mid-war Pacific planes.  Early-war Euro planes, particularily Eastern-Front, are alsao lacking, but not as badly.

Once these holes are taken care of, THEN it's time to come back to planes like the B-24, He-177, ETC.

J_A_B

[Citabria]

sustainable damage levels for buffs are tweaked for gameplay guys. this area shouldnt be a primary factor in how worthy of a buff it is in the MA.
example: ju88. its a tuffened plane because it has no defenses

b17: 1 well placed 30mm will set b17 on fire every time (most of my b17 kills i set them on fire in one pass with a small amount of 30mm or 20mm)

lancaster/ju88: a small amount of 30/20/12.7mm into the cockpit will pilot kill them.

[BenDover]

Originally posted by ShaunMcL:
B24 wouldnt last very long if a 262 started on it. what AH  needs is somthing bigger like a B29(Enola Gay plane) superfortress now that is a bomber id like to c that in the next update  and nukes to that would go well. also we should have the bouncing bomb in the lancaster

Also we need some Stuka Dive bombers to do some cowardly vulching on poor people on runway but u need some dams to bounce bouncing bombs off    

steal my idea of bouncing bombs and dams,why don't ya??    

[Dead Man Flying]

Bah, who cares about a B-24?

I'd much rather have a PB4Y.  

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Citabria]

b24 was the US pacific bomber. all b17s were withdrawn from pacific duty very early on.

[Dead Man Flying]

PB4Y = B-24 in the Pacific

I had lunch a couple of months back with a PB4Y pilot and a 101st BG B-17 pilot.  It seems there's quite a rivalry between the two of them over which plane was better overall.  Watching them go at it was worth being there alone.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[iculus]

PB4Y...

Saw three of them in Wyoming this summer.  Pretty birds.  Would love to see them in AH.  A B-17F would be nice too.  Someday....

<S>IC

[Citabria]

pb4y1 would be great

it would be a great mod from a b24  

bigweek needs another american 4 engine heavy.