Prototype Days (or arena)

[1carbine]

I believe this is one of the biggest reasons we don't have the B-29, and I'm fine with that.  Sure I'd like to see the B-29 in the game eventually, but I understand there are many other aircraft that should be introduced before it.

Yeah he could, he could put in a whole arena oh wait....

[Anaxogoras]

Come on, I for one would enjoy watching B-29s suicide bomb task groups.

[1carbine]

Well I'm going to try to get away from the B-29 thing and on to the prototypes. The Germans built an me 163 with retractable gear didn't quite make combat but was built during the war.

Junkers Ju 287 made three prototypes and some parts came from a B-24 liberator,and carried around 8000lbs of ord, I just think planes like this would be nice to have even if it was once a month and expensive.

[MORAY37]

There're many facets of fighter capabilities. Speed, armament, durability, maneuverability, range... through an entire spectrum of speeds altitudes and situations. Beside speed and maybe range the 262 is among the worst in the game in all of those categories, including armament when you consider the battery of MK 108's effectiveness in a dogfight.
The Tempest is quite a good, well balanced aircraft, maneuverable, durable, great guns fast... short range maybe...
The thing is, that with fighters you need to engage the enemy... in any situation where you're killing you're vulnerable to be killed.

Bombers are a completely different ball game... speed, defensive firepower, range, durability and payload are the only things that matter. The B29 would be the best in the game at all of those categories by a significant margin.
Also bombers do not have to make themselves vulnerable to drop their ordinance, beside a 1-2 mph loss from the bomb bay doors opening....

I'm glad someone gets it.

[RTHolmes]

just out of interest, how many 29s were shot down by enemy aircraft, and which types?

[AWwrgwy]

just out of interest, how many 29s were shot down by enemy aircraft, and which types?

From:http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/b-29-losses-4429.html

20th Bomber Command
80 total, with 22 due to fighters, 7 from AAA and 51 from "other"
breakdown by year is:
1944 70 total, with 20 due to fighters, 5 from AAA and 45 from "other"
1945 10 total, with 2 due to fighters, 2 from AAA and 6 from "other"

21st Bomber Command
334 total, with 52 due to fighters, 47 from AAA, 19 from fighter/AAA and 216 from "other"
breakdown by year is:
1944 25 total, with 4 due to fighters, 1 from AAA, and 20 from "other"
1945 309 total, with 48 due to fighters, 46 from AAA, 19 from fighter/AAA and 196from "other"

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-296.html


There's always wiki.




wrongway

[RTHolmes]

yeah theres always wiki, but the guys on this forum can usually come up with a wider and more interesting range of sources, like you did

looks like we need a few more jap fighters to match up with the 29 if we ever get it, particularly the ki-45 with the Schrage Musik type cannons or the fwd firing tank gun. might be fun to try occasionally, like the wgrs on the 110.

the reason I ask is that my impression was that the 29s were practically untouchable IRL, so probably would be ingame too. since this game is basically about combat there doesnt seem much point adding aircraft which wont ever get engaged in combat, I suspect this is one reason why the 29 is down the list of aircraft to be added.

[Ack-Ack]

What is surprising about those stats is the ratio between losses from being shot down and 'other'.


ack-ack

[RTHolmes]

yeah 65% "other", presumably mechanical/pilot/planning errors. suggests the 29s were practically untouchable, as you'd expect from the specs and mission profiles.

[1carbine]

There was an ME 262 with a 50mm cannon on the nose now who wouldn't want that 

[Wingnutt]

make it only flyable from LARGE airfields with a hefty perk cost and no nuke.

just like every other plane added people will fly the crap out of it for a week or so and it will taper off and find it niche after that.


only allowing it from large airfields will make other bombers more competitive against it considering availability.

plus it will get more people IN bombers (more targets) trying to earn perks to buy it, so more strat runs to intercept which.. I for one.. always enjoy.

[1carbine]

make it only flyable from LARGE airfields with a hefty perk cost and no nuke.

just like every other plane added people will fly the crap out of it for a week or so and it will taper off and find it niche after that.


only allowing it from large airfields will make other bombers more competitive against it considering availability.

plus it will get more people IN bombers (more targets) trying to earn perks to buy it, so more strat runs to intercept which.. I for one.. always enjoy.

I am trying to earn perks for a 262 so a high perk bomber would give me something to work for 

[Wingnutt]

I am trying to earn perks for a 262 so a high perk bomber would give me something to work for 

lots of people fly otherwise rare high ENY fighters to earn more perk points faster to be able fly the perked fighters more and sooner.

right now there is nothing in the bomber department worth buying.. the 234 is very limited in its abilities.. VERY.. so even people who drive buffs primarly see no value in it (see " I have 5k bomber points because there is nothing to spend them on)

the B29 might get more people into the 88s, 87s and other high OBJ bombers.

you woould probably see MORE variaty in the bombers being flown if they put in the 29, not less.

more strat runs to intercept aswell probably,  more bombers hitting towns instead of dropping hangars.. etc etc

[1carbine]

lots of people fly otherwise rare high ENY fighters to earn more perk points faster to be able fly the perked fighters more and sooner.

right now there is nothing in the bomber department worth buying.. the 234 is very limited in its abilities.. VERY.. so even people who drive buffs primarly see no value in it (see " I have 5k bomber points because there is nothing to spend them on)

the B29 might get more people into the 88s, 87s and other high OBJ bombers.

you woould probably see MORE variaty in the bombers being flown if they put in the 29, not less.

more strat runs to intercept aswell probably,  more bombers hitting towns instead of dropping hangars.. etc etc

  don't really like the 234 hard to defend yourself without just running away I hold onto my RATO's if I can, when I fly it on rare occasion they had prototype Arados I liked more more bombs better defensive armament like the Ju-287 V1 and V2 (V2 finally flew in 1947 after the Russians got ahold of it and most of the the design team so i guess the V2 is russian lol) not sure what the guns where but it had a higher payload 8,000 pounds I believe.

[Strip]

... Because maybe it can't FIT?!

The number one reason for the lack of a B29 is that it simply won't fit. Literally. The runways are not large enough to accommodate a B29 on takeoff. Taking off a fully loaded Ar-234 with no RATO is a cakewalk compared to what it would take to get a '29 in the air. Those things need a runway at least a mile long. We'd have to modify EVERY map in the game.

The diagonal runways are not one mile, currently they are 1.4 miles or 7,400 feet.

Strip