B-24 request for AH

[Citabria]

what the b24 is is an additional aircraft in the bomber category that will get used by the players in the main arena.


its that simple.

[Wotan]

it adds nothing to the main that isnt already available.

there are twin eng and early fighters that would be more practical.

also the planesets are really limited for the vvs ijn/ijaa and italy.

Then consider the time it takes too model it. Time that could be better used to give us something that would make more sense or atleast fills a gap in one of the planesets.

No more 4 eng fluffers...........

[brady]

And so would the P 108, He 177 ,Coranado, and B 29.

 B 24J:
  290mph
  10 12.7mm mg's
   Normal bomb load of 8,800lb's

 B 29A:
  358moh
  12 12.7mm mg's,1 20mm cannon
   max bomb load 20,000lb's!

 He 177A-5/R2
  303 mph
  1 7.9mm mg 81, 4 13mm mg 131's, 2 20mm cannons.
  13,300 lb's of bombs

 P 108:
  267mph
  8 12.7mm mg's
   3 torpedos or 7,716lb's of bombs

 PB2Y Coronado:
  223mph
  8 12.7mm mg's
   8,000lb's internal pluss 4,000 external
    torpedo capable.

   Now the B 29 is obviously in a class by itself,it redefines heavy and screams perk me!

  Obviously all the rest are capable of self defense, and they all cary a very usable bomb load. now what would add somthing we dont already hve in the MA?

 P 108 would give us a heavy with a 3 torpedo punch, give the Axis a heavy, and Italy a great buff.This Buff would also be available for all Scenarious, combat theather, and other events set from early war to mid war.

 He 177 would give the Axis a heavy buff,HTC would be indunated with request for modeling Air to surface anti shiping missels,He 177 was used in the west and the east and as such be available for scenarious.It's bomb load and defensive arament would make it very atractave to use.


 PB2Y Coronado:

 Out of all the above buff types this plane would bring the most in terms of new capabalitys to the MA, it is a seaplane. Although the slowest of theam all it is bristling with 50 cals and packs a huge load, and is torpedo capable.

 B 24J:

  Other than being one of my favorate US buff's I feal it is redundant at this point, do to the fact we have the B 17.

[eddiek]

"it adds nothing to the main that isnt already available.
there are twin eng and early fighters that would be more practical."

Gotta agree with ya here.  While I like the B24, it makes me no real difference if it gets added soon or not.  Same for any LW heavy bombers......we already got heavy buffs in AH, only thing keeping you from using them is contraints within the CT, or you are too stubborn to fly it if it is US/British made.  
I may be wrong, but I see too much "us against them" mentality when it comes to new planes.  I have been guilty of the same at times in the past, but I have tried hard to not be that way.  Go into the CT, you will see me in LW rides as often as you do Allied planes.  Some folks just have this mindset that they can only fly LW or Axis planes when there are already planes available to do the job they want to do, and the same principle applies in reverse to folks who will only fly Allied planes.
The way I see it, the Axis, or more specifically the Germans, only had 3 things that were without peer in the Allied inventory:  Me-262 (which we have in AH), armored vehicles (although the T-34 would give them a run for their money IMO), and the V-1/V-2 programs.  The V-1 or V-2 would be pretty wild to have in AH.....teh V-1 "could" be chased down and killed, while the V-2 was unstoppable......neither was real accurate, as in pinpoint accuracy, but they did their jobs of keeping the British worried, though not quite to the extent that old Adolf envisioned.
Wanna add something unique to AH, add those two......make them both perks   ,say about 55 for the V-1 and 350 for the V-2, as it is not gonna be stopped once it is fired.  But you better be damn good on setting the coordinates for it   .
I don't see the need for a hvy LW, Japanese, or Italian bomber, as in all honesty, past June 1942 in the PTO and I guess 1943 in the ETO, the Axis was pretty much on the defensive, was it not?  Not much use for a strategic heavy bomber from what I recollect.  The only exception would be the Emily, but that is the only one I can think of.  I may be wrong, as I am not real familiar with the LW activities on the eastern front, whether or not they tried to use strategic bombing such the Allied heavies were doing to the Reich.  But from what I have read, in numerous places, the LW went from offensive to defensive in their aircraft designs.  
Just my $0.02 worth on this subject.........
 

[Kieran]

The only thing I see wrong with your thoughts, EddieK, is that we can only postulate what the Germans might have been able to accomplish with true heavy bombers in the numbers available to the Allies. In the East it would have meant being able to reach beyond the Urals, where the Russian factories were located- this would have had the effect of slowing down Russian production, which is what contributed greatly to Germany's destruction in that theatre. In the West it would have been difficult for the Allies to marshall all the supplies in England that were virtually untouchable by the LW, arguably delaying or even preventing D-Day.

We are very fortunate the Germans did not have anything with the range or bomb capacity of our heavies.

[eddiek]

Not sure exactly how to take you response, Kieran.  
We can only postulate a lot of things, what "might have been" if you will...........
But after reading your reply, and thinking about it, I still stand with what I said earlier.  The LW went from an offensive force in 1940-42 (??) to almost totally defensive in the years from 1943 to the close of the war.  Sure, they had prototypes of heavy bombers, I really got into the writeup on their "New York" bomber....until I realized it looked a LOT like a B-29.  
The jist of my post was that I think it is time to stop with the "we need this because the Allies have that" mentality.
Unless you're running some historical scenario, what we have in AH is pretty damn good; even then, the staff running the events do their best to make substitutions that will closely match what one "could have" expected.
Want new buffs?  Japanese Betty needs to be put in, if for no other reason than it was one of their mainstays.  Slide a Russian buff in there somewhere, too.  
Too many times, I see people in here, myself included at times, making pleas for "We NEED xxxxx..." when what they are really saying is "hey, I want this one."  
Then it becomes a flamefest.  Heck, I "want" a P-47M, but I won't throw a fit if we don't get one.  I "want" the Spitfire XIV here too, if for no other reason than it is WAY past time for one.  It came in second only to the 190D9 in that poll Pyro posted a year ago, yet it was not introduced, in part to the complaints (notice I did not say "whines") from the LW clique.  I voted for the 190D9 too, even tho I don't regularly fly LW iron.
Guys, try thinking about fairness and balance in the AH planesets, not just LW vs the Allies..............

[Kieran]

Hey, I am not championing the LW by any means. You make the point that heavies would not have helped Germany (or the Axis) by 1943; I don't agree. If you think about it, Britain was very much defensive in 1940, and look how things turned out.  

I would rather see a balanced set of medium bombers from the different countries. That is my stated stance.

[Steven]

The B-24 does bring something new to the arena, and that is a new heavy bomber.  As of now, the bomber-folk only have two choices.  Though bombers aren't going to have the wide range in performance that fighters will have, it can be argued that any new late-war fighter introduced won't bring anything new to the MA either.  We have fast, manueverable, rugged and ugly.  I'm willing to throw the heavies a bone and give them a new choice and the B-24 is a valid one.  

But no matter what happens, I hope we don't see any more perk aircraft which are really only for the rich in here anyway.

[eddiek]

<S> Kieran.......I am NOT gonna get into a debate with someone I have a lot of respect for......
You misunderstand me it would appear.  I think that where you and I are miscommunicating is evident in "you make the point that heavies would not have helped Germany (or the Axis) by 1943;  I don't agree."
It's not that they would not have helped if deployed and used effectively, it is the point that they WERE NOT used in that manner that I am trying to get across.
IMO, adding them just because they might have helped them opens a whole can of worms for all involved.  When you cross into the "might have been" spectrum, you invite justified claims for a whole host of aircraft that "might have" been holy monsters had they entered combat, notably the F8F, the F7F, latter series of F4U's, P-51H(K?), P-47J, etc.  All these "might have" or rather"would have" seen combat had the need arisen, with the F8F being a whisker away from actually doing it in reality. IMO, again, the Axis held NO edge in prop engined aircraft, as anything they had in their inventory had a counterpart in the Allied inventory.
As an aside, just from curiousity, anyone else notice that these debates almost always turn into one over the ETO, and rarely the PTO?

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: eddiek ]

[Kieran]

Right. We can extrapolate forever, and most of it is useless. I am only talking about a specific issue, totally separate from the rest of the discussion. My view of what is helpful to AH is that variety is good. I also believe it only fair to try to represent each country, and if it can be done in an equitable manner, so much the better.


As to why the debates wind up in the ETO... these were different wars in many ways. The naval aspect of the PTO made for a different type of war, and strategic bombing didn't have the large impact until much later in the war. Carrier operations and island campaigns are far different from the types of conflict found in Europe or the Eastern Front. There were far more varieties of aircraft developed to carry the campaign in the ETO, therefore more room to argue what would have done what to whom and how.

No problems with insulting me, you weren't directing anything personal at me, I understood you. Besides, conflict is healthy if it remains respectful- it's how ideas get exchanged, challenged, and assimilated.

[MadBirdCZ]

Yes please  

[Citabria]

the b24 was the u.s. pacific heavy bomber.

the b17 was not even in the pacific during most of the war.

only at the begining was the b17 used in the pacific.