Author Topic: would really love a b24 for ah2 (Read 767 times)

Citabria · « **on:** August 29, 2003, 08:57:13 PM »

I love that plane

B17Skull12 · « **Reply #1 on:** August 29, 2003, 10:15:47 PM »

so do i but we need more german bomber IMO like the HE111!:D

ccvi · « **Reply #2 on:** August 30, 2003, 08:33:27 AM »

Somewhere else they even have two of them

Kevin14 · « **Reply #3 on:** August 30, 2003, 08:40:21 AM »

there should be a B29 in AH2 with a atomic bomb and when you bail out you should be able to shoot a hand gun. If we have the 163b which never really saw any combate why can't we have the b29 with a atomic bomb?

Puudeli · « **Reply #4 on:** August 30, 2003, 08:47:01 AM »

ya plzs give us teh nuek!!1111

SeanDJ · « **Reply #5 on:** August 30, 2003, 09:30:29 AM »

um the nuke would be to easy....

vorticon · « **Reply #6 on:** August 30, 2003, 09:43:28 AM »

rather have a almost good german heavy he177

Golfer · « **Reply #7 on:** August 31, 2003, 09:23:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kevin14
there should be a B29 in AH2 with a atomic bomb and when you bail out you should be able to shoot a hand gun. If we have the 163b which never really saw any combate why can't we have the b29 with a atomic bomb?

because 2 atomic bombs saw service.

and multiple squadrons of komets saw service.

the end

MajorDay · « **Reply #8 on:** September 01, 2003, 01:15:56 PM »

Blah, Axis need more bomber than we need and believe or not, they need more fighters too.

ccvi · « **Reply #9 on:** September 01, 2003, 01:43:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kevin14
there should be a B29 in AH2 with a atomic bomb and when you bail out you should be able to shoot a hand gun. If we have the 163b which never really saw any combate why can't we have the b29 with a atomic bomb?

100 times more 163 were used in WW2 than atomic bombs. That's why

Replicant · « **Reply #10 on:** September 01, 2003, 04:39:11 PM »

I've always liked the B24 too... bring it on!

One question, was it actually tougher than the B17 as in strength/survivability after damage? Was payload higher than B17?

Karnak · « **Reply #11 on:** September 01, 2003, 04:52:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Replicant
I've always liked the B24 too... bring it on!

One question, was it actually tougher than the B17 as in strength/survivability after damage? Was payload higher than B17?

B-17 was tougher.

B-24 had a longer range, higher cruising speed (though lower top speed) and bigger payload than the B-17.

In AH terms it would probably be the B-17 for speed and durability (nobody uses cruising speeds in AH) and the B-24 with an 8,000lb payload as opposed to the B-17's 6,000lb (bombers all have plenty of range so that wouldn't matter either).

SELECTOR · « **Reply #12 on:** September 01, 2003, 06:51:55 PM »

b24 in RAF coastal command colours.....oh babbbby

Kevin14 · « **Reply #13 on:** September 01, 2003, 09:27:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Golfer
because 2 atomic bombs saw service.

and multiple squadrons of komets saw service.

the end

Oh, come on

Quote

Originally posted by Shark88
there should be a B29 in AH2 with a atomic bomb and when you bail out you should be able to shoot a hand gun. If we have the 163b which never really saw any combate why can't we have the b29 with a atomic bomb?

Golfer · « **Reply #14 on:** September 01, 2003, 09:39:58 PM »

you're using statistics from that *****ing knucklehead? I dont think he could find his cornhole with 2 hands and a flashlight.

Read a book.