New plane request: B24H/J

[RAM]

Citabria...

USAAF------->2 medium-late war bombers modelled

UK--------->1 Late war bomber modelled

Germany-------->1 early war bomber modelled

Italy, Japan, USSR, France-------->no bombers modelled.

----------------------
In 1.05 AH:


Number of fighter planes in Aces High:  22 (maybe 23 if Seafire makes it thru)

Number of Bomber planes in Aces High: 4

Number of ATTACK planes in Aces High: 0

Number of DIVE BOMBING planes in Aces High: 0

Number of TORPEDO PLANES in Aces High (counting Ju88 as one): 2
-----------------------------------

Number of 1944-45 planes in 1.05:

USAAF: 8 (6 fighters, 2 bombers-all american planeset is latewar)

Germany: 2 (2 fighters-G6 is a 1943 G6)

UK: 2 (1 fighter, 1 bomber)

USSR: 2 (2 fighters)

Japan: 1 (1 fighter)

Italy and France: 0 (well, there mas none in real life   )
--------------------------------

We will prolly get USN ships (the CV and PT indeed are american, DDs and CAs dont know, but we can guess it by the fact they are armed with 5' DP guns   .

 Not german or Italian or british or Japanese. American.
--------------------------------

And you yet want another american heavy 1944 bomber, that will do exactly the same role of the B17?

 

Oh, BTW I said that B24 is not urgent in AH because B17 fits the same role right now. NOT THAT THE B17 AND B24 ARE IDENTICAL PLANES.

So, learn to read or stop using demagogy,please.

[edit] almost lost this:

 

they would never get used in the MA. and in scenarios they would be moving targets just like the ju88 and soon to be released flying turkey tbf.

Ju88 are used by LW in MAin Arena. I've seen Hazed doing awesome things with a Ju88. People just dont know to defend themselfs if they are not on a laser-fitted bomber, thats all.

Oh...and "turkey" TBM (not TBF) will be used in MAin arena, and Ju88 will be too if it receives torpedoes, and Betty would do it too prolly by Japanese squads...

you know why? because they carry torpedoes and can be used for anti-fleet missions. I think that your B24 doesn't, right?.[/edit]

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 12-08-2000).]

[Jigster]

If the B-24's and Privateers hadn't played such vital anti-shipping roles I would be inclined to agree, but with the Navy coming out it fills an important niche.

- Jig

[RAM]

Yes, jigster, but it is YET another level bomber, YET another american plane and will be YET another laser gunship.


I dont say B24 hasnt a spot in AH. It indeed has it. But IMO there are way more urgent needs in our planeset right now.

(and BTW the B17 played too a quite significant maritime role in WWII, both in the pacific and in the Coastal Command in Britain)

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 12-08-2000).]

[M.C.202]

RAM said:
> Oh...and "turkey" TBM (not TBF) will be used in MAin arena, and Ju88 will be too if it
> receives torpedoes, and Betty would do it
too prolly by Japanese squads...
> you know why? because they carry torpedoes and can be used for anti-fleet missions.
> I think that your B24 doesn't, right?

The B-26 could, as could the P-38. Thats what I want for a torp bomber, a P-38 :-)

AND:
> I think that we need the other style of bomber, the Fast bomber, wich main defensive
> weapon was speed.

So you want the A-26? :-)

Bomb load........4,004 lbs in the bombay, +2,002 under the wings.
Speed............373mph@ 10,000ft
Range............1,400miles with 4,004 lb bomb load.
Guns ............Up to 20(!!!) .50 cal mgs.
                 Four in turrets, six fixed forward, and ten in add on pods under the wings.
Oops, that bird had guns, bombs, speed, and more than 2,000 produced, all in one package...
Hey, I got to fly in one, and loved it :-)




------------------
M.C.202
Dino in Reno

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by M.C.202:
The B-26 could, as could the P-38. Thats what I want for a torp bomber, a P-38 :-)

how many?...if they are less than a couple of hundreds, please add a choice to remove the cowl MGs from my 190 and you get your torpedoes.


[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 12-08-2000).]

[Nashwan]

 

Number of 1944-45 planes in 1.05:

USAAF: 8 (6 fighters, 2 bombers-all american planeset is latewar)

Germany: 2 (2 fighters-G6 is a 1943 G6)

UK: 2 (1 fighter, 1 bomber)

What's the British 1944-45 fighter RAM?

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by Nashwan:
What's the British 1944-45 fighter RAM?

SpitfireIX Was the standard spitfire in 1944 wasnt it?.

I dont know enough about spits to know if the one in AH has 1944 performance, but for what I have read in the forums, it is a 1944 SpitIX.

I may be wrong, tho.


[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 12-08-2000).]

[Karnak]

The Spitfire MkXIV was the dominant fighter of the ?9th Tactical Airforce? from mid-1944 on.

It really depends on when in 1944 you're talking about, RAM.

The Spitfire MkIX is fundamentally a 1942 fighter.

   

Originally posted by RAM:
Germany: 2 (2 fighters-G6 is a 1943 G6)

By your standards for the Spitfire MkIX, the Bf109G-6 would be considered a 1944 fighter as well because it was to most common Bf109 used by the Luftwaffe in 1944.

You can't have it both ways, either the UK has 2 1944 aircraft and Germany has 3 or the UK has 1 and Germany has 2.

Sisu
-Karnak

EDIT:  Sorry Gerd.  Didn't intend to hijack your thread.

[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 12-08-2000).]

[RAM]

Karnak, depends.

I dont know wich spitIX performance does the current AH's spit matches, if a 1942,1943 or 1944 Spitfire IX.

The G6 in AH is indeed a 1943 G6. I know it because the performance chart, and because I know some things about 109s. But my knowledge on the subvariants of the SpitIX is more than limited so I simply dont know wich one we have.

I recall having read in this forum, somewhere, that the current spitfire is a 1944 F.IX. I may be wrong, as I have said in my previous post.

About Spit XIVs, sorry but the IXs were way more numerous than the XIVs. So, the standard Spitfire of 1944 was the IX.

[Karnak]

RAM,
Dominant does not mean "most common".  It means that it was the front line fighter that was used in preference to the others that were available.

Yes, the MkIX was more common than the MkXIV, however the G-6 was likewise more common than the G-10 in 1944.

I don't know which model year we have for the Spitfire MkIX in AH.  It does have the 1944 armament option of 2 20mm and 2 50 cals, but I recall it performance matches that of a 1942 Spitfire MkIX.

I always take the 2 20mm and 4 .303s option for the Spitfire MkIX.

Sisu
-Karnak

[sling322]

Wow...only one thing comes to mind after reading this thread.  It seems to me that the anti-LW conspiracy has spread to more than just planes in some people's minds.    

[Replicant]

1944 RAF Bomber?  Okay, the Lancaster III in Aces High has a 1944 rear turret (field modification on less than 190 a/c) but it's still a 1942 plane.

As for other buffs... well I don't mind what they bring.  I'm no Soviet or Japanese buff expert but they really deserve a good heavy/light buff.  I'd still like a B24 or B25 yes (RAF colours?   ), and even a He111, Do217 and He177 or even a Condor.

As for RAF... well, I'll settle for a Beaufighter or Mosquito in the Torpedo role  

Regards

Nexx

[Replicant]

 

Originally posted by Karnak:
RAM,
Dominant does not mean "most common".  It means that it was the front line fighter that was used in preference to the others that were available.

Yes, the MkIX was more common than the MkXIV, however the G-6 was likewise more common than the G-10 in 1944.

I don't know which model year we have for the Spitfire MkIX in AH.  It does have the 1944 armament option of 2 20mm and 2 50 cals, but I recall it performance matches that of a 1942 Spitfire MkIX.

I always take the 2 20mm and 4 .303s option for the Spitfire MkIX.

Sisu
-Karnak

Yep, I agree.  No doubt some axis countries used the 109E or 109F in 1944/45 but it doesn't make it a 1944/1945 plane does it?

Nexx

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by sling322:
Wow...only one thing comes to mind after reading this thread.  It seems to me that the anti-LW conspiracy has spread to more than just planes in some people's minds.  

and what comes to mind to me is that you see phantoms everywhere. This was a quite civil thread until you had to play the clown.

Karnak, G6s in 1944 had quite different performance than the one we have here, believe me   anyway is a moot point, then the Fw190A8 cant be said to be a 1944 plane either.

all this talk is senseless, my point is that while Americans will have 8 late war planes in 1.05, the rest of nations have, at its best, 2. And that, IMO, sux bigtime. Its time to pay attention to the other nations.

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 12-08-2000).]

[Jigster]

I detect 1.6 RAMs.  

Go over the entrance into combat dates of those US planes again, and stop trying to make it seem like they all magically appeared in late '44