Heavy Bomber tweaks

[No9Squadron]

1. B24s burned that much against 163s? seems like one shot always always lights the plane. 163 is too easy in the hands of skilled pilot? B24 burns, but 163 never accidentally explodes or burns with 12-18 .x50 cal firing at it?

2. Why only one gunner 1 plane, is it not possible have 2 drones, 2 gunners? Better still, could joiners be given a menu like field gun menu like e.g. "this position is taken" but belly gun is free. Have as many gunners as there are positions in the aircraft.

3. Single .50 cal in H2S belly option for lancs with 4 x 303 tail, as a perk plane perhaps.

4. B24D as a high eny obj plane

5. Catalina / Italian Bomber / Wellington / B25J/ Beaufighter / Lockheed Hudson / JU52 with goon option

6. 8k cookie, 50lb bombs for lancs. 4k cookie and 50lb bombs, some burning and obscurity over other factory targets.

7. B24 too easy to reach past 29k... should be some risk attached of engine trouble or pressurization issues, like a 163 it's la creme de la creme of experimental late war machines and requires some basic flying skill/achievement in perks to obtain. Same with 163, it's modelled on the design, which is theoretically safe to fly and functions every time, which wasn't the case with both experimental aircraft. I'd have more risk attached to using 29s and 163s.

8. RE: Pilot Wounded. This sucks a lot when you are over strats. Have option on planes with co-pilot seats for gunners to be able to fly, IF the pilot is wounded. If ever Catalina, Sunderland and other flying boats appear, have option for gunner to make tea/med for pilot wounded and have the med option in lancs or other heavy bombers. The med option is limited, like an adrenalin shot to wake the pilot up and gives 5 minutes, for a landing or bombing or whatever is needed, after which pilot dies if not ditched/landed. The med option could be operated by player or gunner. This could be implemented now, having gunners fly from gunner positions using rudder and waking up the pilot for landing.

[SmokinLoon]

I agree with a few of your points/wishes.  In the case of the B24's they do seem to too easily flame up.  But what do we have to measure it against?

I'd like to see the ability to have multiple gunners on a single plane as well, it isn't a priority for me as I do most of my own defensive gunning anyways.

The vs. 163 issue is sort of a moot point, land a few hits to the 163's mid section and "puuf".

I'd REALLY like to see the B24D version in AH.  I think there is enough difference between the EW and LW versions to warrant 2 different models.  Ditto for the B17. 

The B24 is a pig when loaded down with ords.  Once it gets to its "prime alt" at 25,000 ft, just plan on using the B24 there until the ords are dropped.  It only carries so much fuel.  It isnt a B29.   

Pilot wounds in a US heavy bombers: I think PW's could be addressed.  There is a reason there were 2 pilots.   

[Karnak]

Which bombers in AH had a copilot?  B-17G, B-24J, B-25s, B-26B, B-29A, G4M1 and Ki-67 I know did.  Did the Ju88 or He111?  On the Lancaster the flight engineer had flight training to act as a backup.  The Boston Mk III and Mosquito both lack copilots as do the B5N2 and TBM-3.

[Krusty]

Taking in the laundry list from the OP, it's a bomber whines. However, there are some points to address:

B-24s had notoriously weak wings. They flexed and flopped in reality (the so-called "Davis Wing" if I recall?) but this also meant they were more flexible and definitely not as strong as their B-17 comrades.

B-24s could NOT fly at the alts they fly in here. They could barely fly level at 28-29K. They more often were capped at 25-26K, and often flew much lower (20K and below). They had to break up formations or run the risk of just sliding sideways into their wingmates and taking out 2-3 others. It was a common enough sight to see one struggle up there and then just snap-roll inverted onto its back. One bomber pilot made specific mention of this. Often such violent movements would cause the loss of that plane, as well.

As for your 8x50cals should kill a 163? Only if 8x50cal hit it. Often you are not. Often you ping it once. I've personally seen many 163s insta-popped in the MA. The key is to actually hit them.

B-24D would be worth about the same value as a B-24J in this game. The main difference was the nose gun defenses. This was only an issue in WW2, where the planes cruised at max cruise even during combat. This allowed enemy fighters to overtake, turn around, and HO repeatedly during a single engagement in short periods of time. In THIS game all you get is full throttle nonsense and tail-chases. You'll almost never overtake B-24s and HO them more than once in here. So the value of those nose guns is almost nil comparing the D and J variants. You want to farm perks with a high OBJ rated bomber? Fly a Junkers. Or a G4M3. Or a Mitchell (one of my favorites).

Hitech said they will not most likely never add any ord larger than the 4k cookie. It would be too easy to abuse in-game and destabilize anything from GV bombing to airfield attacking.

As for your experimental comments: the 163 was not experimental. It was a combat-flown production craft. It wasn't conventional and didn't see as much combat as prop planes, but they are very much modeled on actual service. B-29s were not experimental either.

Pilot wounds? Deal with it. It's part of the damage model. Don't get shot and you won't get pilot wounds. You're lucky you weren't pilot killed or blown up out-right. Enjoy the second chance you got (blackouts and all) while it lasts, because otherwise without that pilot wound you'd be back in the tower.

[guncrasher]

you can have two gunners:  yourself and another who joins you.

as for having more than 1 person join you, it has been discussed to death.  we have a choice: either have as many gunners as we have gunning positions or having slaved guns.


semp

[Volron]

you can have two gunners:  yourself and another who joins you.

as for having more than 1 person join you, it has been discussed to death.  we have a choice: either have as many gunners as we have gunning positions or having slaved guns.


semp

Wasn't it a choice between having several gunners or having formations?

[guncrasher]

Wasn't it a choice between having several gunners or having formations?

formations with slaved guns.


semp

[Volron]

formations with slaved guns.


semp

Ah.  I did not know about that bit.

[Zacherof]

you can have two gunners:  yourself and another who joins you.

as for having more than 1 person join you, it has been discussed to death.  we have a choice: either have as many gunners as we have gunning positions or having slaved guns.


semp

I can see see it now. bunch of drunk old fatrs fill an entire b17. kill them oh the whines

[Zoney]

There is only one change for bombers I would wish for.  I would like a choice to be available before takeoff of AI's OR gunners.  I do not know if this is possible.  You choose to either have 2 AI's roll with you, or fill you buff with other players in every gun position historically available.  If you choose the AI then fine, you can have 3 chances and slaved guns.  I would want the player choosing the single buff with gunners to be able to accept players to gun for him in-flight.  That way players would not have to be sitting their through the entire climbout if they did not want to.  I would also like for each of the manned positions to be killable, kill the gunner and get a kill credit for a gunner, not an aircraft kill credit and no perks for killing a gunner.  I would like for the gunner that did the most damage to me to be credited with the kill when it occurs, and the bomber pilot.

I love hunting buffs.  I absolutely love the excitement of making a pass knowing it is 999000.  It is the chalenge that makes the result, whatever it may turn out to be the reward.  I would dearly love attacking a B17, or B24 or whatever, knowing that every position is manned by another player.

[Rich46yo]

I think 24s had a fuel line that ran down their side and the LW pilots would aim for. If Im not mistaken both the wing root and fuel line could be hit in one pass. The LW pilots far preffered to attacks B-24s then B-17s.

[bangsbox]

Pilot wound is fine. It's not a big cockpit; odds are very good if you shot the pilot the co-pilot is hit too. Also the b24 is easier to down than a 17. This is why it flames up a little faster. For the 163 it's got 2 30mms it can kill anything fast and if it has no fuel u pretty much need to kill the pilot to bring it down.

[Lusche]

163 is too easy in the hands of skilled pilot? B24 burns, but 163 never accidentally explodes or burns with 12-18 .x50 cal firing at it?

The 163 actually is exploding very quickly if hit, it can't take anywhere as much damage as other fighters before you are back in the tower. There are no oil or fuel leaks or engine stoppages... you simply blow up.
With it's speed and small size it's just a very difficult target to hit in the first place.

By the way, got three Komet's at no loss in two sorties two days ago

[colmbo]

B-24s had notoriously weak wings. They flexed and flopped in reality (the so-called "Davis Wing" if I recall?) but this also meant they were more flexible and definitely not as strong as their B-17 comrades.

Where have you gotten the idea the B-24 wing "flexed and flopped"?  I've crawled around inside the wings on both the B-17 and B-24, I agree that the B-17 wing is probably stronger due to it's truss type construction (you could probably use one as a bridge ) but have no reason to think the B-24 was "weak".  As for the flexing, in all the time I flew the airplanes I never saw the wing flex (like you do with modern jets) and down in the southeast US one dark and stormy day we certainly encountered turbulence that would have flexed the wing.  Nor did we ever notice wrinkles in the wing skin, something you will see if a wing is flexing.  (Ever notice the wrinkles on a B-52 fuselage ahead of the wing?)

It was a common enough sight to see one struggle up there and then just snap-roll inverted onto its back. One bomber pilot made specific mention of this. Often such violent movements would cause the loss of that plane, as well.

One guy mentions this and that makes it a common occurrence?  I talked to a lot of B-24 guys and they talked about it's heavy controls, inability to get as high as the B-17, that is was a pain to taxi, had a weak nosewheel, fuel leaks and fires, would easily lose hydraulic system with damage but I don't remember them saying anything about snap rolling.  From my experience the biggest issue flying formation is that the airplane doesn't trim well in pitch and it is very easy to bleed off 5-10 mph by making sloppy pitch inputs so you have to be pretty aggressive to maintain a close formation --- enough so that it would be tiring on a several our flight to Berlin.  As for the snap-roll, on the B-17 if you use aileron to pick a wing up at the stall you'll be upside down before you can say Focke Wulf so might not be a "B-24" issue at all.

[Krusty]

From pilot stories noting it in turbulence. Also a few notes from a recollection from ferry flights (rough weather sometimes).

I don't mean to suggest it flapped like a bird's wing, but it moved, undulated, and scared more than a few folks that were onboard. One navigator said he had to force himself to NOT watch it, because if he did he would start asking questions about how it keep them in the air like that, and he didn't want to go there. He was more than glad to land safely after that one.

P.S. The performance at 30K is noted in a couple of books from pilots that flew them in formation. It wasn't just trim. The plane would require full concentration just to stay level. It would swerve and the nose would oscillate left and right, and the tail would twist slightly, and the wings would move. The whole plane was alive, and it was impossible to keep fine control of it. It wasn't just trying to lift an aileron during stall. The whole plane flexed.

Even when they tried putting a B-17 nose on one B-24, it worsened this flexing, if I recall, making it harder to control even at lower alts.