Author Topic: The B17F  (Read 1504 times)

Offline thndregg

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4053
The B17F
« on: April 19, 2010, 04:36:55 PM »
In the interest of variation, such as the case with the P38-G, J, and L, the various P47 models, and many more, I would like to see the introduction of the B17F. This would open up the avenue of more skins being introduced as well for this aircraft, such as the well recognized "Memphis Belle". Thank you.
Former XO: Birds of Prey (BOPs - AH2)
Former CO: 91st Bomb Group (H)
Current Assignment: Dickweed Heavy Bomber Group

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: The B17F
« Reply #1 on: April 19, 2010, 04:52:18 PM »
+1

B-17G is WHOLLY inappropriate for PTO scenarios. A B-17E or F would be much appreciated in FSO.
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline minke

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 619
Re: The B17F
« Reply #2 on: April 19, 2010, 04:54:38 PM »
Death star II ?  Good lord  :O
That said,
What does the F model have that would justify its addition?

Offline Raptor

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7577
Re: The B17F
« Reply #3 on: April 19, 2010, 05:31:24 PM »
No chin turret

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: The B17F
« Reply #4 on: April 19, 2010, 05:31:56 PM »
Death star II ?  Good lord  :O
That said,
What does the F model have that would justify its addition?

There's this for starters:

Quote
B-17G is WHOLLY inappropriate for PTO scenarios. A B-17E or F would be much appreciated in FSO.

The B-17F is also more appropriate for early-war scenarios than the G. It's a low priority for sure (need a Ki-43 and G4M first) but earlier versions of the B-17, B-24 and also the Lancaster would find uses, particularly in scenario play.
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline curry1

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2321
Re: The B17F
« Reply #5 on: April 19, 2010, 05:38:48 PM »
Indeed when you are flying an a6m2 in a FSO and you as much as see a b-17 your dead which happened in the Too Little too Late Scenario(I think).  I don't even think most people even went after the b-17s becuase of the 110% chance of death.
Curry1-Since Tour 101

Offline thndregg

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4053
Re: The B17F
« Reply #6 on: April 19, 2010, 05:45:19 PM »
No chin turret

I realize this, hence the reason I made the request. It doesn't have to be superior to be included, I would think.
Former XO: Birds of Prey (BOPs - AH2)
Former CO: 91st Bomb Group (H)
Current Assignment: Dickweed Heavy Bomber Group

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: The B17F
« Reply #7 on: April 19, 2010, 05:45:38 PM »
Main armament changes would be:

Reduced cone of fire in the rear tail turret (it would have the original tail, not the Cheyenne tail our -G has), open side windows, equally spaced left/right (nonstaggered), a single gun in the radio room hatch, no "cheek blister" guns that can aim forward (most were angled outward and had narrow windows of fire), only 1 gun in the nose on a flex mount, and a bit of a different performance envelope.

Would still be a problem for A6M2s, I have no doubt. Better than a -G, though!

Also, in WW2 the Luftwaffe learned to make head-on passes on bombers to minimize time inside the defensive gun range. Usually bombers had less guns in the nose because of the bombadier. Later models of B-17s and B-24s carried powered turrets in response to this LW tactic (which proved effective). For scenarios in that time frame before the chin turrets showed up it would be nice to see them over Europe, as well!

Offline ACE

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5569
Re: The B17F
« Reply #8 on: April 19, 2010, 05:57:57 PM »
+1
Sixth Tri-Annual Dueling Bracket Champion

The Few

-Spek

Offline FYB

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1074
Re: The B17F
« Reply #9 on: April 19, 2010, 07:31:23 PM »
I realize this, hence the reason I made the request. It doesn't have to be superior to be included, I would think.
It's got everything i want, hell... Why not, +10. I give it +1 for the idea and +9 because I personally fly the B-17 and would love to see other variants!
Most skill based sport? -
The sport of understanding women.

Offline Spikes

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15851
    • Twitch: Twitch Feed
Re: The B17F
« Reply #10 on: April 19, 2010, 07:36:53 PM »
I realize this, hence the reason I made the request. It doesn't have to be superior to be included, I would think.
Think he was replying to the post above him. :)
i7-12700k | Gigabyte Z690 GAMING X | 64GB G.Skill DDR4 | EVGA 1080ti FTW3 | H150i Capellix

FlyKommando.com

Offline thndregg

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4053
Re: The B17F
« Reply #11 on: April 19, 2010, 09:51:09 PM »
Think he was replying to the post above him. :)

 :headscratch: :rolleyes: Gotcha. I apologize. :o
Former XO: Birds of Prey (BOPs - AH2)
Former CO: 91st Bomb Group (H)
Current Assignment: Dickweed Heavy Bomber Group

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20387
Re: The B17F
« Reply #12 on: April 19, 2010, 11:14:11 PM »
Main armament changes would be:

Reduced cone of fire in the rear tail turret (it would have the original tail, not the Cheyenne tail our -G has), open side windows, equally spaced left/right (nonstaggered), a single gun in the radio room hatch, no "cheek blister" guns that can aim forward (most were angled outward and had narrow windows of fire), only 1 gun in the nose on a flex mount, and a bit of a different performance envelope.

Would still be a problem for A6M2s, I have no doubt. Better than a -G, though!

Also, in WW2 the Luftwaffe learned to make head-on passes on bombers to minimize time inside the defensive gun range. Usually bombers had less guns in the nose because of the bombadier. Later models of B-17s and B-24s carried powered turrets in response to this LW tactic (which proved effective). For scenarios in that time frame before the chin turrets showed up it would be nice to see them over Europe, as well!

I'd love to see the 17F as it was a big player and would be more appropriate for the PTO stuff as it could sub for the E as well.  As for nose and cheek guns.  They did introduce the bulged cheek guns on the F and it kind of depends on what was decided on the nose gun as it was often two 50s.  Since folks all know the Belle, she had two 50s in the nose.  The preferable option apparently was the single 50. but it all depends on who did the mod in the field.

The F was apparently the fastest of the 17s too.
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline TOMCAT21

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1648
Re: The B17F
« Reply #13 on: April 19, 2010, 11:50:52 PM »
+1
RETIRED US Army/ Flying and dying since Tour 80/"We're paratroopers, Lieutenant, we're supposed to be surrounded." - Capt. Richard Winters.  FSO 412th FNVG/MA- REGULATORS

Offline Hap

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3908
Re: The B17F
« Reply #14 on: April 20, 2010, 07:13:22 AM »
I'm for it . . . as if that carries any weight.  :)