B-29

[MiloMorai]

-armament. this may be a reason why it deserves to be perked, but why? it only has 1 20mm i believe in the tail (same as the betty) and it has no nose or waist guns. so if you can line your plane up right, the b29 will be easy to HO or strafe from the side without being in the line of fire. so its an allmost equal trade off. the b29 will be suicidal to attack from the rear,top, or bottom. but vunerable in a HO or to the sides.

It did have an upper front turret with 4 .50"s and a lower front turret with 2 .50"s. Waist guns on the B-17 and B-24 were basically useless. As to strafing the B-29 from the side, there is 4 turrets that can engage you. That is 10 .50"s.

[Tyrannis]

It did have an upper front turret with 4 .50"s and a lower front turret with 2 .50"s. Waist guns on the B-17 and B-24 were basically useless. As to strafing the B-29 from the side, there is 4 turrets that can engage you. That is 10 .50"s.

are you sure they are elevated enough to be able to get that angle of a shot? they dont look like they are. the front maybe. but the sides it doesnt. i could be wrong tho.


in-game the waist guns arent totally useless, there good for using when the enemy wants to make a sideways tail sweep on you. (sorry if i didnt use the proper attacking name lol)

[Tyrannis]

I belive the reason its taken so long to get the 29 is the "When and can we have the nuke?  ".
Quite frankly it would be annoying being asked every 5 mins "Can we have the nuke"--------5 mins-------"Can we have the nuke"------------5 mins---------"Can we have the nuke"----------5 mins--------------"Can we have the nuke"--Htc's reply "NO will you stfu about that stupid nuke!"----person asking for nukes reply " "

can we have the ATOMIC bomb?


(see wut i did thar?     )

[Babalonian]

can we have the ATOMIC bomb?


(see wut i did thar?     )

Kill it, kill it with a stick!

[Karnak]

Tyrannis,

We've debunked all of your arguments.

The B-29 will climb markedly better than you state, being 28,314lbs lighter at 50% fuel than at 100%.  You could even take 25% at times and be ok.

The B-29 has as good or better forward firepower than the B-17G does, depending on the angle the fighter attacks from.  It has a much superior M2 20mm cannon (Hispano Mk II) in the tail, along with two .50s as compared to the G4M1's Type 99 Model 1 cannon, though I believe the G4M1 has significantly more cannon ammo.

A formation of B-29s will carry 60,000lbs of ordnance at max, noticeably more than the much slower, much more vulnerable Lancaster's 42,000lbs in a formation.

The B-29 will have a top speed of 355-360mph, faster than any bomber in the game other than the unarmed Mosquito Mk XVI and quirky Ar234, both perked.

It is likely, though not known yet, that the B-29 will be the most durable aircraft in AH, ever.  Even monsters like the H8K2, if ever added, would not be as durable.


If it were not perked, as you argue, you would rarely see any bomber other than B-29s unless ENY limits blocked them.  There would be no reason to ever fly a B-17G, B-24J or Lancaster, period.  Will the B-29 be vulnerable?  Yes, more so than the Ar234 or Mosquito Mk XVI, both perked, but less so than any other bomber.  The trick HTC has it to find an appropriate perk value to balance its massive war load, performance and vulnerability.

[Tyrannis]

Tyrannis,

We've debunked all of your arguments.

The B-29 will climb markedly better than you state, being 28,314lbs lighter at 50% fuel than at 100%.  You could even take 25% at times and be ok.

The B-29 has as good or better forward firepower than the B-17G does, depending on the angle the fighter attacks from.  It has a much superior M2 20mm cannon (Hispano Mk II) in the tail, along with two .50s as compared to the G4M1's Type 99 Model 1 cannon, though I believe the G4M1 has significantly more cannon ammo.

A formation of B-29s will carry 60,000lbs of ordnance at max, noticeably more than the much slower, much more vulnerable Lancaster's 42,000lbs in a formation.

The B-29 will have a top speed of 355-360mph, faster than any bomber in the game other than the unarmed Mosquito Mk XVI and quirky Ar234, both perked.

It is likely, though not known yet, that the B-29 will be the most durable aircraft in AH, ever.  Even monsters like the H8K2, if ever added, would not be as durable.


If it were not perked, as you argue, you would rarely see any bomber other than B-29s unless ENY limits blocked them.  There would be no reason to ever fly a B-17G, B-24J or Lancaster, period.  Will the B-29 be vulnerable?  Yes, more so than the Ar234 or Mosquito Mk XVI, both perked, but less so than any other bomber.  The trick HTC has it to find an appropriate perk value to balance its massive war load, performance and vulnerability.

wasent so much an argument as simply my opinion. but ok.

[Greebo]

FWIW the lower turrets on the B-29 could fire 5 degrees above horizontal, the upper front turret 2.5 degrees below and the upper rear horizontal and above only. The rear turret could train 30 degrees up, down left or right. You definitely don't want to attack a B-29 in the horizontal plane. Best bet would be a frontal attack from 3 degrees or more below the nose.

[Ack-Ack]

personally i dont feel the b29 deserves to be perked at all, sure it has a huge bombload, but its SLOW climbrate would most likely keep the b17/b24's in use.

B-29 has a faster loaded climb rate than a loaded B-17/B-24 and carries far more bombs.

i mainly see the b29 becoming a city/HQ attacking bomber only. it wouldnt be good for base capturing really, a group of b17's could have a town droped before a b29 even got high enough for a proper bombrun. may be good for low-alt carpet bombing, but as stated it will be a HUGE target for ack/flak to hit.

I'm not even going to bother with this one other than you're incorrect.  Those with the perks will probably fly the B-29 as their primary bomber.  It's got the range, firepower, bomb load and speed to make it far more survivable in the MA than any other bomber.


[quote
if you plan on attacking b29's with nikkis for historical fun, then allow me to suggest to you the japanese way of attacking b29s  

[/quote]

That was pretty much the same tactic used by the Luftwaffe in engaging bombers, head on attacks. However, since you don't know, the Japanese had a very difficult time intercepting B-29s, especially when they came in at high altitudes.  The Japanese just didn't have a sufficient enough of a high altitude interceptor to do the job.  It was only when the B-29s were ordered to fly lower at medium to low altitudes did the Japanese have an easier time intercepting the bombers but then, it was only a minor improvement as the B-29A and the newer and lighter B-29B were fast enough to make intercepting them even at these altitudes difficult.  It's one of the main reasons why B-29 losses due to fighters were significantly lower than losses from AAA and mechanical failures.

also, i demand dive flaps on my b29,. because i WILL be divebombing tiger tanks with it, just to cause the trillions of whine threads on the boards about it  

Not surprised you would resort to gamey tactics, it's common amongst those with little skill.

ack-ack

[Krusty]

Historically this plane ran the risk of melting its engines if it climbed on full throttle. Nearly risking a fire, one test had it barely getting to 20k in 30 minutes. This was a speed test. After that they reduced to normal climb power, and it took an additional half hour to get to 30k. I wish I had the link to that test. It was posted a long while back on these forums.

Naturally this won't be modeled in Aces High, where our B-17G runs full WEP all the time.


Frankly, IMO no 4-engine bomber in this game ought to be allowed to take off without 100% onboard. It just unbalances the bombers in this game too much, letting them climb higher and faster than they ever could historically, and once up there floating like butterflies on the wind effortlessly, while flying faster in level flight than they ought to (yes, 100% in a B-17G slows down your level speed at 30K because your angle of attack must increase to balance out the weight, causing more drag)

It's not comparable to fighters. It's specific to bombers in this game.

[Ack-Ack]

Frankly, IMO no 4-engine bomber in this game ought to be allowed to take off without 100% onboard.

I agree and I also believe this should also carry over to fighters as well that have the ability to lug orndance.

ack-ack

[Tyrannis]

B-29 has a faster loaded climb rate than a loaded B-17/B-24 and carries far more bombs.


I'm not even going to bother with this one other than you're incorrect.  Those with the perks will probably fly the B-29 as their primary bomber.  It's got the range, firepower, bomb load and speed to make it far more survivable in the MA than any other bomber.


That was pretty much the same tactic used by the Luftwaffe in engaging bombers, head on attacks. However, since you don't know, the Japanese had a very difficult time intercepting B-29s, especially when they came in at high altitudes.  The Japanese just didn't have a sufficient enough of a high altitude interceptor to do the job.  It was only when the B-29s were ordered to fly lower at medium to low altitudes did the Japanese have an easier time intercepting the bombers but then, it was only a minor improvement as the B-29A and the newer and lighter B-29B were fast enough to make intercepting them even at these altitudes difficult.  It's one of the main reasons why B-29 losses due to fighters were significantly lower than losses from AAA and mechanical failures.


Not surprised you would resort to gamey tactics, it's common amongst those with little skill.

ack-ack

uh-oh, someones butthurt from what i said in the other thread and feels he needs to ankle hump me in every post i make now. 

[Stoney]

Historically this plane ran the risk of melting its engines if it climbed on full throttle.

Oversimplification Krusty.  The biggest concern was during the run-up, taxi, and pre-takeoff  in the warm conditions experienced on Saipan/Tinian airfields during big mission launches since the engines were operating without much relative wind for cooling.  Once they were airborne, this problem went away.  That's not to say that the engines could have been close to overheating before they got airborne, and it caused problems during the climb, but the cooling issues were related to low-speed, low-altitude conditions.  Very symptomatic of a tightly-cowled engine.  And, it wasn't enough to cripple the entire XX AF fleet on missions, but was arguably most associated with individual aircraft, and scare the entire B-29 communities' aircrews enough to create the nefarious reputation it had.  With the B model, these issues began to diminish.

Naturally this won't be modeled in Aces High, where our B-17G runs full WEP all the time.

Should have said "runs military power all the time."  We don't even have the WEP setting available on our B-17G

Frankly, IMO no 4-engine bomber in this game ought to be allowed to take off without 100% onboard. It just unbalances the bombers in this game too much, letting them climb higher and faster than they ever could historically

In game, those patient bomber pilots can get to whatever altitude they want before flying into bad-guy territory, regardless of power setting.  Its a matter of how patient they are.

It's not comparable to fighters.

It most certainly is comparable to the advantages fighters enjoy in-game, but we know we disagree on this.

[Stoney]

I agree and I also believe this should also carry over to fighters as well that have the ability to lug orndance.

ack-ack

Why?  I would imagine that the Corsairs supporting on Okinawa, or the P-51's supporting on Iwo didn't carry full tanks when they took off...  These guys were flying 15 minute sorties...

[Krusty]

It is not comparable to fighters in the least.

While a somewhat superficially similar event happens with fighters, you're not reducing the flying weight by HALF the plane by taking less fuel. You don't gain 2x or 3x the climb rate as compared to historical performance numbers just by taking less fuel.

Fighters were compact, small, light (even the heavy ones are feathers compared to 4-engine bombers) and the end result of flying with 100% vs 50% only comes into play at stall speeds. You wouldn't affect a fighter's top level speed, for example, by more than 1-2 mph.

On the other hand, bombers gain tremendous a-historical performance gains by flying across the map and back on 25% at full throttle the entire way. They become super bombers, far outperforming the historic counterparts they are based on.


P.S. No I meant WEP. I believe the power setting currently used as "full throttle" was a 5-minute limited power setting. A squaddie of mine posted about it a while back posting actual power settings used.

[Ack-Ack]

Why?  I would imagine that the Corsairs supporting on Okinawa, or the P-51's supporting on Iwo didn't carry full tanks when they took off...  These guys were flying 15 minute sorties...

So, are you trying to say for example the P-38s that took part in the air support of Okinawa and other places like the Philippines took off with both 100% fuel, drop tanks, bombs and rockets?  Hardly.  Even the Iwo P-51s that flew missions to the Japanese main islands never took 100% fuel and 100% ordnance. 

ack-ack