The B24 Liberator!!

[hyena426]

and i dout many planes could take as much damage as the b17,,,,they would come back with most of there tail gone,,and make it home just fine,,lol

[BenDover]

after some other bombers from other countries
PLEASE!

personaly i want a halifax and lancaster mk 1, thats the one that carried the tall boy and grand slam, and the bouncing dam buster bomb

[hyena426]

to be fair,,,,we need,,b24,,,hinkle he111,,,,and the stuka,,,,out of all bombers,,the boston and the a20,should fo came long after these bombers were in place,,,,because the 3 i mention were very vital bombers of there time ,,, i know we all want the b29,,but it would be overwhelming at the moment im sure

[Karnak]

Heavy Bomber Production Totals:

B-24 Liberator: 19,203

B-17 Flying Fortress: 12,731

Lancaster: 7,374

Halifax: 6,176

B-29 Superfortress: 3,960 (including post-war production)

Stirling: 2,370

He 177 Greif: 1,126

Tupolev TB-3: ~800


That said, why do we need the B-24 right now?  It is so similar to the B-17G in capability that it would bring nearly nothing to the game and would take nearly as much effort on HTC's part as adding the B-29, which would at least be a usable perk bomber.

Even higher on our request list shoud be a Russian bomber such as the Pe-2 or Tu-2S.

Another large aircraft that would be useful would be the H8K2 "Emily", which is fast, climbs better then the B-24 by far, well armed, can carry 6,600lbs of bombs and is Axis.

hyena426,

The Boston was added because it is useful as an early war Allied bomber, has multiple versions that offer significantly different capabilities and because it was used everywhere.

[hyena426]

go look at how much the liberator could carry:)

[Karnak]

hyena426,

I am well aware of how much the B-24 could carry.  In AH it would likely be able to carry 8,000lbs.  That is not significantly different than the B-17's 6,000lbs.


What the B-24's absolute maximum load was is irrelevant.  The B-17's was 16,000lbs, yet in AH it carrys a typical B-17 load: 6,000lbs.

[Soviet]

dammit we have enough american bombers already.  a B-24 is near the end of the priority list, we need more VVS planes, italian planes, jap planes and a good (note, GOOD) german bomber before we get another american bomber

[Glasses]

Yes I'm Up for the B-24 being introduced as I need new targets. But we need Buffs from the other countries as well . Russians are lacking  a     Bomber and Germans are lacking a good  late war buff like Soviet said.

I want to see the flying tricycle landing gear torch aorund here in the future, aim for those nice wing tanks near the fuselage for nice Extra tasty crispy crews mmm mmm mmm.

[hyena426]

the b24 was no joke,,,reason it carried more was because of its powerfull motors,,,could reach max speed of 301,,it had Four Pratt & Whitney R-1830-33 (S3C4-G) Twin Wasp 14 cylinder air-cooled reciprocating radials ,,,best motors around at there day,,,,,10 ,,50cals,,,,alt,,31,000,,and being even morely produced,,,they should be in there,,,,and lots of pepople agree,,stuka,,,he111,,,popular as hell,,and should be in any ww2 sim

[brady]

Perhaps I was to cryptic, I think we nead a B 24 like we all nead a freaking hole in the head, it is beyond redundant, although I can appricate people wanting it because it is their favorate toy, any other arguments for adding it are simply vailed atempts at hiding thier thier true reasion for adding it.

 The A20/Boston was a great addation to AH as Karnak has said and for the reasion's he said.

 Bombers from other countries are neaded at present to balence out the plane set for the CT and for events.

 Since we will undoubtly get more us planes, seams we can't not get them:) I suspect you will see the redundant Liberator in the future.

[OntosMk1]

B-17 Goooooooodddd
B-24 Baaaadddd

As nobody likes to buff anymore adding the 24 would be pointless. Although I do agree on getting some Axis bombers in AH. I personally would like to see an Italian bomber.The one with three engines would be neat. I suck cuz i cant remember the name:( anybody know what A/C im talking about?

[hyena426]

why,,what is wrong with the liberator?,,, if it was so produced,,why not have it in here?,,,the a20, ,,was a good plane,,but liberator was use tons in ww2,,and for some reason allways been skipped in ww2 flight sims,,,,just like most bombers it helped win the war,,and had a killer payload,,because there aint no reason at all,,it should be excluded from aces high or anyothere ww2 sim ,,,why would you be so aginst it being added?,,,,dont like more real planes to fly?,,hehaheha,,and of all bombers this one should be here just as much,,as b17,,,or b26,,or lancaster,,,more of liberators made anyways,,and it treated there crews well,,and saying

I think we nead a B 24 like we all nead a freaking hole in the head, it is beyond redundant, although I can appricate people wanting it because it is their favorate toy,

   well,sorry,,but its jsut as popular bomber made as any othere in here,,,and saying hole in the head,,why?,,i dont get your point,,lol,,because im not even a bomber pilot,,but im tired of seening such a good plane be negleted from ww2 sims,,when it was avery importaint part of the war

[BenDover]

Originally posted by brady
nead a freaking hole in the head

hmm, was it JFK who said that before he went to Dallas, or was it some1 else

who was it who said

"I need this trip as about as much as i need a hole in the head"?

[brady]

hyena426, I salute your attempt to promote this Plane, if came across as being rude I appoligise. Hear are my points in a little more depth.

 Production numbers are a piss pore excause for adding a plane for a number of reasion's, the least of which is that they favore the US a little to much. Production numbers do not tell the whole story so what if a ton of them were made the US was fighting Japan and Germany and suplying planes to a ton of countries because we had the industrail base to it, we wone the war because of the fact that were were lucky( the enemy screwed up) and we made more than they did. But realy if numbers is all that mater Russia realy wone the war 22 pluss million dead is the price they paid ( and I beleave the IL-2 was produced in larger numbers than any other allied bomber)

 The B 24 is a great plane no doubt, I prefer it to the B 17, but we have the B 17 and the B 26 and the A20 and the TBM, and the Boston, that's  FIVE US bombers(4 realy). Ya see it takes HTC a long time to build bombers at least 4 tiems as long as a fighter ( or so I have been lead to beleave) So if you want a B 24 what are you going to give up, well at lest 4 fighter's New ones not mod's. And what are you going to give them up for? The allies have a ton of bomber's and some great one's the Lancaster and the mossie ect. If you model the B 24 you bring nothing new to the game in terms of capabalities or representation, the allies are well represented in the bomber area. Italy Germany and Russia are not, it would be nice if at least one of those countries got a bomber( the JU 88 is a 1940 bomber and not in a league with the late war monster the allies have).


  The Cant Z 1007 for Italy.

[NOD2000]

lol well the liberator was always said to be no where near trustable as the 17 29 26 25 it would not float in the ocean period.. when one eng was lost  it took full rudder to compinsate for it..... the quarters were way more crampt....ok lets put it in comparison with each of these planes.....

24 vs. 17-- 24 slower, less armerment, less armor, lower turn radius,bigger target, really not landing freindly compared to 17 on the other hand it could carry more bombs and had better fuel miliage thats about it.....

24 vs. 26--- 24 slower bigger and didn't have the survivability rate of the 26 only .3% of 26's were lost per sorty and well 26 will always be my plane...

24 vs 29 -- well i really don't have to say jack didle here

24 vs 25 -- well 24 is just the 25 with a bigger wing span and 2 more engs not alot of diffrence looking there performence and story's over