Author Topic: AH2 needs B24's (Read 903 times)

Karnak · « **Reply #15 on:** February 14, 2003, 10:31:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tequilla
Hmm I have 2 surving relatives who flew in the b-24. Both will say it was a tough bird and will staunchly defend it against the myth that it was weaker than the b-17.

The Germans rated the B-24 far lower than the B-17. They found that it took far less to shoot down B-24s than B-17s and attacking them was less dangerous.

Ridge · « **Reply #16 on:** February 14, 2003, 10:34:56 PM »

Well the Germans used alot of explosive shells....the B-17s frame simply had more lateral spars than the B-24s...requirement of a rounder airframe...

CavemanJ · « **Reply #17 on:** February 15, 2003, 06:46:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
The Germans rated the B-24 far lower than the B-17. They found that it took far less to shoot down B-24s than B-17s and attacking them was less dangerous.

My granddad flew -24s. While he would never talk about operational flying, he would talk ya to sleep about training and the planes themselves.

The one thing I remember most from his comparisons of 17 vs 24 was this:
If ya wanna take a heavy bomb load real far from home, and fairly quickly, take the -24.
If ya wanna make it home after deliverying your load... take the -17.

That being said, we still need the -24

MRPLUTO · « **Reply #18 on:** February 16, 2003, 06:12:36 PM »

B-24 (D and/or J)

He-111 H-3

Illyushin Il-4

SM. 79 or CANT Z. 1007

G4M1 "Betty"

(The Japanese, like the Germans, need a slower bomber. In historical scenarios the Ju-88A-4 and Ki-67 "Peggy" are much faster than the earlier models they are substituting for. The Ki-67's max speed was 334 mph. The G4M1's max speed was only 266 mph.)

MRPLUTO VMF-323 ~Death Rattlers~ MAG-33

Shark88 · « **Reply #19 on:** February 18, 2003, 02:53:46 PM »

Don't for get the B29 and it atomic bomb which by the way should be in AHII becuase the b29 and its bomb where the most important thing in WWII becuase IT ENDED IT!

BOOM!!!!

Arlo · « **Reply #20 on:** February 18, 2003, 05:32:35 PM »

You are on meds usually, right?

Karnak · « **Reply #21 on:** February 18, 2003, 08:53:16 PM »

Mr.Pluto,

You are aware that the Axis early war fighters are in exactly the same boat as the Allied early war fighters, right?

The Boston Mk III can do 345mph, far too fast for an A6M2, Bf110C-4b or even Bf109E-4 to intercept.

Also, I disagree about the Ju88A-4. It is only very slightly faster than the Ju88A-5 of the BoB. The biggest difference is that people run it at full throttle 100% of the time in AH, whereas the Germans had to use cruise settings to conserve fuel and save the engines.

These bombers are needed for the early way:

B-25C
G4M2
Wellington Mk III

PrillerJ · « **Reply #22 on:** February 19, 2003, 03:20:43 AM »

Any bomber would be nice for me... (but Italy and USSR lacks a bomber,, SM 84 or Pe8 would be nice) But B24 is a good choice.

MRPLUTO · « **Reply #23 on:** February 19, 2003, 03:06:26 PM »

Karnak:

You're right, the Boston Mk III, being a 1942 model, is too fast for 1940 era Axis fighters. Checking the "Illustrated Encyclopedia of Military Aircraft" I found a much lower max speed for the Boston: 304 mph @ 13k. Hmmmm.

Anyway, the B-25c, Wellington, and G4M2 (I wrote G4M1 above; M2 might be better) would all be good. How about the Bristol Blenheim Mk1V, too?

******

In terms of mph difference, the A-4 is only slightly faster than the BoB A-5. But, I figured out once, it means that a pursuing Hurricane I would take 50% longer to catch the A-4. So instead of 6 minutes, it would take 9. It's a judgment call if you consider that significant. I do. Minutes count in air combat.

MRPLUTO

Shark88 · « **Reply #24 on:** February 20, 2003, 03:17:58 PM »

AH needs this the P-61 Black Widow

blkmgc · « **Reply #25 on:** February 21, 2003, 07:13:32 AM »

The lib was the workhorse of the war.Not only in the ETO , but in North Africa, and the South Pacific as well. To properly do events for these areas we need the B24.

Besides, I know a bunch who might fly here ifluff'n you had it.

blkmgc

Bodhi · « **Reply #26 on:** February 21, 2003, 07:50:28 AM »

The strength of the B-17 is the round fuselage that allows stresses from damage to dissipate into the surrounding structure. The skin is the strength there. On the other hand it's wings take their strength from the corrugated layer between the two spars underneath the skin top and bottom. The layer is what hold that wings structural integrity together and is able to dissipate damage extremely well into the surrounding structure. The B-24 had neither design to the extreme as does the 17. Not a fault, just different design philosophies. One was built for survivability the other was built to do a job, with survivability as an afterthought.