Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: United on July 02, 2004, 12:48:20 AM
-
There has been much discussion in several threads about the uses a B-24 could have in AH. Several of these facts are compared to B-17s. Heres my 2 cents.
1.) There were more B-24s made than any other bomber of WWII, and nearly 6000 more than B-17s.
2.) The B-24 was used in almost every theater of the war: European, Mediteranian, N Africa, Pacific, and North Atlantic.
3.) The B-24 served in many roles, including maritime patrol, antisubmarine work, reconnaissance, tanker, cargo and personnel transport, not to mention plain level bombing.
4.) The B-24 dropped nearly 630,000 pounds of bombs, as the B17 dropped around the same amount (I dont have any numbers to back this up for the 17)
5.) The B-24 had an excellent range, meaning it could fulfill the roles mentioned in #3 sufficiently.
6.) The B-24 had a heavy defensive armament, with 10 .50 caliber MGs covering every point on the bomber.
7.) The B-24 was the only allied aircraft capable of completing trans-atlantic flights.
8.) The B-24 had a higher max speed (303mph) than the B-17C/D/G (291-302)
9.) The B-24 had a higher cruising speed than the B-17F/G (160mph)
10.) The B-24 was capable of carrying a heavier bombload than the B-17.
B-24: 5000-8,800lbs
B-17: 4000-6000lbs
There are only a few downsides to the B-24 compared to the B17.(There are more but I cant think of them as of now.)
1.) The b-17 could take a lot more punishment from enemy fire than the B-24.
2.) The B-17 was easier to handle at altitude. The B-24 became very unstable above 25k because of the new Davis wing design.
You can compare specifications of different models of B-24s, and B-17s. http://www.ww2guide.com/usab.shtml
Now, with this data the following are the conclusions I made. The B-24 had a lengthy service in WWII, from the beginning to the end. It also served in just about every theater of the war, and there were more B-24s made than any bomber of WWII. Now, why shouldnt we have the B-24? It served just as well as the B-17, and i would argue it did better.
Besides, its just plain sexy!
(http://www.consolidatedmodels.com/assets/images/B-24J-01.jpg)
-
Repost:
Now, I've no problem with the B-24 and hope it is added someday. I don't think it is urgently needed, at least not the B-24J. What is needed for a USAAF heavy bomber is an earlier heavy bomber, be that a B-17E or B-24D. The fact of the matter is that there are far larger holes in the planeset than the B-24J when it comes to scenarios. We have no VVS or Regia Aeronautica bombers at all and only one early war Luftwaffe bomber. The early war Allied bomber is too fast for the early war Axis fighters to intercept. The Japanese bomber is late war and totally overmatches the early Allied fighters when used in place of an early war Japanese bomber.
I'd like to see the following before duplicate efforts like the B-24J (same role as the B-17G), Halifax Mk II (same role as the Lancaster Mk III) or He111H-16 (same role as the Ju88A-4) are added:
Early war Allied bomber: Wellington Mk III or B-25C Mitchell
Earlier USAAF heavy bomber: B-17E Flying Fortress or B-24D Liberator
Early war Japanese bomber: G4M2 "Betty"
Late war Luftwaffe bomber: Ju188A-2 or Do217E-2
Russian bombers: Pe-2 (early war VVS bomber), Pe-2FT (mid-war VVS bomber) and Pe-2B (late war VVS bomber)
Italian bomber: Cant Z.1007 Alcione or Savoia-Marchetti S.M.79-II Sparviero
Next post will adress points.
-
Repost, an answer to your original post:
I hate to admit it, but yes the B-24 was not the mainly used bomber by the USAAF, and yes, it wouldnt do much to fill in the gaps in the planesets. I do think we need the HE-111 and Betty, maybe the Wellington before the B-24, but I can still hope, right? :D
But be serious, until we got in range of Japan itself heavy bombers didn't play a major role in the Pacific, and then it was the B-29A that did it.
Now, I will, OTOH, argue this point with you. I have many personal stories of heavy bombers being utilized in the Pacific before we were in reach of Japan. Now, it may not have been a very major role, but they did serve a very significant role, even though they may not have done much damage to the Japanese.
I eagerly await your next post. :)
-
1.) There were more B-24s made than any other bomber of WWII, and nearly 6000 more than B-17s.
True, but sheer numbers are not a great reason to add a unit when there are gaping holes.
2.) The B-24 was used in almost every theater of the war: European, Mediteranian, N Africa, Pacific, and North Atlantic.
[/b]
Once again true, but the B-17G is a reasonable stand in for scenarios dealing with those locations.
3.) The B-24 served in many roles, including maritime patrol, antisubmarine work, reconnaissance, tanker, cargo and personnel transport, not to mention plain level bombing.
[/b]
None of which are relevant in the context of AH.
4.) The B-24 dropped nearly 630,000 pounds of bombs, as the B17 dropped around the same amount (I dont have any numbers to back this up for the 17)
[/b]
Yes, the B-24 obviously played a huge role in WWII and should be included in AH, but due to the needs of scenarios it should have a lower priority.
5.) The B-24 had an excellent range, meaning it could fulfill the roles mentioned in #3 sufficiently.
[/b]
I've never seen a situation in AH or an AH scenario where a B-17s range came close to being too short.
6.) The B-24 had a heavy defensive armament, with 10 .50 caliber MGs covering every point on the bomber.
[/b]
This does not distinguish it from the B-17G.
7.) The B-24 was the only allied aircraft capable of completing trans-atlantic flights.
[/b]
This is not relevant to AH. B-29A could also do so, but was not used in such a role.
8.) The B-24 had a higher max speed (303mph) than the B-17C/D/G (291-302)
[/b]
302 vs 303? That is not very stunning.
9.) The B-24 had a higher cruising speed than the B-17F/G (160mph)
[/b]
Bombers do not seem to ever use cruise settings in AH due to their enormous supply of fuel.
10.) The B-24 was capable of carrying a heavier bombload than the B-17.
B-24: 5000-8,800lbs
B-17: 4000-6000lbs
[/b]
This point and point 6 have always made be feel that in sim terms the B-24 is 3/4ths B-17G and 1/4th Lancaster Mk III.
I like choices in selections. The Lancaster Mk III and B-17G are a great example. The player has a choice of taking a heavy payload or taking a well defended bomber. The B-24 simply adds a point between the two extremes represented by the Lanc and Fort.
-
As I said in my above post (which you may not have had a chance to read yet) I would like to see the holes filled in before a B-24 is added, but I would like to see a B-24 added eventually, especially before a B-29.
Your answer to #1 is very true, but you have to make some sort of recognition of how many of these planes were made, even if they didnt serve as big of a role as other bombers. Of course, I agree with you that the holes should be filled first.
Once again true, but the B-17G is a reasonable stand in for scenarios dealing with those locations.
True, but having a B-24 varient could add to each scenario, and could add for a few more such as the Ploesti raids or the bombing of Iwo Jima.
None of which are relevant in the context of AH.
Absolutely correct, but I was just making note of what it could do. Also, HT has made mention of adding submarines to AH, maybe, but not in the near future. If subs were added, the B-24 could be used in its anti-submarine role, but that is in the distant future, maybe.
This does not distinguish it from the B-17G.
This is true, but it also says that it is the same as the B-17G, and not inferior by any means.
302 vs 303? That is not very stunning.
True, but it is faster. :D
Bombers do not seem to ever use cruise settings in AH due to their enormous supply of fuel.
This is true, but if there is a scenario involving the B-24 and fuel is crucial to the survival of the bomber group, then having a higher cruise speed would be a good thing because you can get in and out of the target area faster, meaning less time for enemy flak and fighters to cause serious damage.
This point and point 6 have always made be feel that in sim terms the B-24 is 3/4ths B-17G and 1/4th Lancaster Mk III.
I like choices in selections. The Lancaster Mk III and B-17G are a great example. The player has a choice of taking a heavy payload or taking a well defended bomber. The B-24 simply adds a point between the two extremes represented by the Lanc and Fort
I agree with you in the fact that choices are good, but i have run into the situation more often than not when I want more bombs than a B-17 can carry, but I also dont have time/patience (which is just part of me being lazy) to use 3 sectors or so climbing up to alt and speed to bomb with the Lanc. I feel a B-24 could provide a decent medium.
-
Awesome research! You really proved your point United. I always wanted the B-24 in AH. It would be nice.:)
-
Originally posted by McGuinn
Awesome research! You really proved your point United. I always wanted the B-24 in AH. It would be nice.:)
Thanks McGuinn, but you also have to agree with karnak. He's saying that we need to fill in the holes in scenarios and put things in priority. As of now, a He-111 is more important than a B-24 because of the upcoming BoB scenario. So, even though getting a B-24 would be absolutely fantastic in my mind, others would be angered because they feel the gap in the planeset is too far to have another American heavy bomber. I agree with em, but a B-24 sure would be nice! :D
-
Very true. :)
-
We need the naval B24 with the 20mm defensive guns.
-
At this time I think it extreamly bad timing to add this plane, a plane this size takes as much work and time to model aparently as 3 or 4 fighters. Also we have a ton of freaking US equipment in the game a very well represented plane set for them indead, it would be nice if some work was done to realy expand the plane sets of the underrepresented countrys. I am not saying never add the B 24 just not right now, we have a B 17 it has 4 engines is bristling with 50 cal's and carrys a bumch of bombs, prety much the same thing as a B 24 in game terms.
-
I think that this is the perfect time to add the much needed B-24 Liberator. Without it, there is a large gap in the bomber planeset
I hope HTC models this plane soon.
-
I think we need an early b24 and/or b17 for ToD
-
B-24 looks like most of british heavy bombers. I would love to see them on AH2 but HTC should expand the plane sets of the underrepresented countries :)
-
B-24 was used by the british :) you get a british and american bomber in one with our new skinning ability.
Guys be honest with yourselves.
which new bomber would get used more and seen more in the Main Arena?
B-24?
He111?
he177?
g4m?
now don't lie to yourselves
the reason we need this pivotal American Bomber is because this american bomber was built to survive heavy fighter attacks and our main arena is full of heavy fighter attacks.
with the B-24 you get...
the B-24D base (this is the best one to model first)
the B-24D is easily converted into the B-24J (nose mod tail turret small change)
The B-24J is also modifiable into the PB4Y2 (the most bad bellybutton patrol bomber in ww2)
the B-24 was used by the british and americans on every single front.
and think about the one big scenario... the one that all the paintings are made of. the one that is legendary in its cost and audacity... ploesti.
could you really ever have a true ploesti scenario without this beautiful plane?
admit it.
B-24 makes sense
what about the TOD aspect of AH? clearly TOD will have a large element based on U.S. daylight raids. could you really have a U.S. daylight bomber and escort campaign without the B-24?
thats like not having the Fw190 and just the bf109 as a stand in.
its a key player and its absence is felt.
-
No Other Heavy now makes since at all realy, Certainly Not an American one, hey I can understand you likeing it and all, but to offer a plane like the B-24 up as neaded for any reasion other than Hey I like it is week at best. For Play balance issues their is more of a logical reasion to add any other Bomber for Russia, Italy, or Germany (He 177 NOT He 111), then lasty Japan. Scenarios and Events and the CT all sufer from the present lopsided nature of the Bomber issue in terms of modeling, and a Big 4 engine Bomber will suck up a ton of time and effort from HTC.
-
yeah CT blah I am talking main arena.
when people are going to fly a bomber in the main arena they wont be often picking those crappy axis bombers. it just isnt gonna happen.
they are gonna pick a bomber with a lot of bombs a lot of guns and a lot of speed.
now thats the b17 and lancaster and sometimes b26 in the MA
now who is going to compete with those three for flight time from the dweeb buff masses?
saying the B-24 is like the b17 is like saying the p51 is like the p47
it dosnt float.
-
It doesn't outclass the 17 enough to make a good MA argument. It doesn't fill the needs of the CT or SEA enough to warrant it's being modeled ahead of other more needed planes.
I like it too but I'd give my eye teeth to see greater latitude when it comes to scenario design options. The planeset, as is, hampers that. The B-24 won't really address it.
-
Citabria,
I think that a Ju188A-2 or He177A-5 would see lots of use. Possibly as much as the B-24, and without taking most of it's users from the B-17G demographic.
There are many Luftwaffe fans who would like a good German bomber and would use it. Both the Ju188A-2 and He177A-5 offer good payloads, good defensive guns and good speed. In other words both are good MA bombers.
-
RE: Ju188A-2 or He177A-5
Yes Karnak,
The JU188A-2 would be a lovely plane for the Axis side; as well as the He177A-5. I could see many uses in the MA for these types of aircraft. I pulled out the old WW2 plane book and here are the specs.
Heinkel He. 177 A-5/R6
Engine HP: 2,700 each
317mph at sea level
up to 6,000 pounds of bombs with one 20mm cannon and 5 .303 machine gunds.
Sounds nice:D
-
He177A-5/R2
Defensive armament:
one 7.9mm MG81J machine-gun in glazed nose; one 20mm MG151 in front ventral gondola; two 7.9mm MG81 in rear ventral gondola; two 13mm MG131 in dorsal barbette; one 13mm MG131 in dorsal turret; one 20mm MG151 in tail
Bombload:
6,000kg (13,200lbs) internal, rarely carried.
Ju188A-2
Defensive armament:
one 20mm MG151 in nose; one 20mm MG151 in dorsal turret; one 13mm MG131 manually aimed at rear dorsal position; one 13mm MG131 or two 7.9mm MG81s manually aimed at rear ventral position
Bombload:
3,000kg (6,641lbs) internally, or two 1,000kg (2,200lbs) torpedoes under inner wings
-
The B24 would see far more use in the CT and the MA as Citabria said and it doesn't matter which bomber you use in the BoB because you don't have a terrain editor to create the proper targets. He111 or Ju88, it only matters to the fighter pilots who whats to shoot them down.
Don't get me wrong, we need Axis and Russian bombers for events and the CT and the He111 should be at the top of that list but of the immediate choices, the B24 would see the most use by far while the He111 would be an instant hanger queen and it will be hard to find pilots for it in special events.
-
while the b24 would make a great addition to the game , i feel it is of similar (not same) specs as the b17.. the same reason i think the halifax wont make an apperence because of it similarity to the lancaster..
Personaly i would like to see some bombers from the other countries from WW2.. for instance and italian bomber, or even a russian..
if a b24 is to be added i would like to see the privateer version..
-
We can bring up performance figures of the varying AC till we are blue in the face. The fact is the B-24 Liberator was a HUGE part of bombing campain(s) in WW2. In a game like AH, it has a placeholder and HTC will need to add it to fill it out. It doesn't matter that its design is similar to the B-17, what matters is that it played a monstrous role in WW2 and AH needs it.
I feel the same about a Betty as well. That AC was used extensively and should be added as well. Then we can have a "Get Yamamoto!!" scenario as well as a big fat juicy Japanese target in all the arenas.
-
The Big issue at least for me with a Plane like the B-24, is that it will consume a lot of time for HTC to build it, time that could be spent building 3 or 4 Entirely New Fighter types, or a medieum buf and another Fighter or two, and this would realy help a country like Russia in geting another Bomber which it realy presently has non of in the game, and A viable MA type for Russia woudl be the TU-2, this as an example has been offered up before of course.
What it boils down to realy is this: If you like the B-24 for personal reasion you can rationalise it easly by say this or that, but it is realy just that a rationalsation. We have all waited for years now to see more depth added to the plane set, and I do hope we all get what we want eventualy, personaly in the short term I hope to see some more depth added to the rest of the planets plane set and not more US stuff, just Because it is US.
Arguably Russia played the Bigest part in defeating Germany out of all the Combatants that faced Germany in WW2 yet Russia has one of the smallest plane set's in the game, you can notcreat an early war plane set for Russia in an event or the CT since their are no early war Russian planes of anytype moded at all presently in AH, this is just one area amongst many whear their are some big holes in the plane set.
-
Originally posted by -ammo-
The fact is the B-24 Liberator was a HUGE part of bombing campain(s) in WW2. In a game like AH, it has a placeholder and HTC will need to add it to fill it out.
And many, many vital aircraft don't even have a placeholder.
Originally posted by -ammo-
It doesn't matter that its design is similar to the B-17, what matters is that it played a monstrous role in WW2 and AH needs it.
I disagree in the degree that matters. The B-24 should be added eventually, but not until aircraft with no placeholders have been added. The Pe-2 also played a monstrous role in WWII and it doesn't even have a placeholder.
Originally posted by -ammo-
I feel the same about a Betty as well. That AC was used extensively and should be added as well. Then we can have a "Get Yamamoto!!" scenario as well as a big fat juicy Japanese target in all the arenas.
I see this request a lot. However, without a slower Allied bomber it would serve to only make the already disadvantaged Japanese even more in scenarios and CT setups. The bomber capability is, excepting the Ki-67, already skewed heavily to the Allies as the A6M2 cannot even intercept the Boston Mk III. Couple that with the Japanese using 1937 and 1938 carrier bombers while the Allies have two 1943 carrier bombers.
You would see a G4M2 in the MA about as often as you see Boston Mk IIIs. Why would a Japanese aircraft fan provide you with a "big fat juicy Japanese target" when he can fly a Ki-67 and actually have a fighting chance?
-
Karnak-
Its not that important to me to get into a debate over. I will just have to respectfully disagree and hope HTC adds many AC in the near future. As brady keyboarded earlier, "I do hope we all get what we want eventualy".
-
Originally posted by United
There has been much discussion in several threads about the uses a B-24 could have in AH. Several of these facts are compared to B-17s. Heres my 2 cents.
1.) There were more B-24s made than any other bomber of WWII, and nearly 6000 more than B-17s.
2.) The B-24 was used in almost every theater of the war: European, Mediteranian, N Africa, Pacific, and North Atlantic.
3.) The B-24 served in many roles, including maritime patrol, antisubmarine work, reconnaissance, tanker, cargo and personnel transport, not to mention plain level bombing.
4.) The B-24 dropped nearly 630,000 pounds of bombs, as the B17 dropped around the same amount (I dont have any numbers to back this up for the 17)
5.) The B-24 had an excellent range, meaning it could fulfill the roles mentioned in #3 sufficiently.
6.) The B-24 had a heavy defensive armament, with 10 .50 caliber MGs covering every point on the bomber.
7.) The B-24 was the only allied aircraft capable of completing trans-atlantic flights.
8.) The B-24 had a higher max speed (303mph) than the B-17C/D/G (291-302)
9.) The B-24 had a higher cruising speed than the B-17F/G (160mph)
10.) The B-24 was capable of carrying a heavier bombload than the B-17.
B-24: 5000-8,800lbs
B-17: 4000-6000lbs
There are only a few downsides to the B-24 compared to the B17.(There are more but I cant think of them as of now.)
1.) The b-17 could take a lot more punishment from enemy fire than the B-24.
2.) The B-17 was easier to handle at altitude. The B-24 became very unstable above 25k because of the new Davis wing design.
You can compare specifications of different models of B-24s, and B-17s. http://www.ww2guide.com/usab.shtml
Now, with this data the following are the conclusions I made. The B-24 had a lengthy service in WWII, from the beginning to the end. It also served in just about every theater of the war, and there were more B-24s made than any bomber of WWII. Now, why shouldnt we have the B-24? It served just as well as the B-17, and i would argue it did better.
Besides, its just plain sexy!
(http://www.consolidatedmodels.com/assets/images/B-24J-01.jpg)
Sure, another bomber formation to pinpoint bomb a lone gv. I've said this a bunch of times. I.A.R. 80 or bust.
Karaya
-
-ammo-,
We'll see. It is HTC's decision,
-
"I do hope we all get what we want eventualy".
I still do, and their is no anamisoity hear on my part, were are all pashonate about the game and our favorate rides, and ones we want to see or we would not bother to discuse this, so again hopefully we will all get or favorate toys:)
Though if I were to wager on this in the short term I suspect HTC will build the B-24 sooner rather than later, since it is likely to fit into their ToD neads in the short term.
-
Yep, what you ^^^ said:)
I would love to see a KI-84 and a J2M as well. And even though we already have three of them..give me a P-47M:D
-
can anyone bring up some stats of the PE-2 i would like to see if it could play a role not only in CT with its 15 people but with the MAIN
-
Which version of the Pe-2?
Pe-2 (early war VVS bomber)
Pe-2FT (mid-war VVS bomber)
Pe-2B (late war VVS bomber)
I haven't got any good Pe-2 references, but it was produced in many versions. I've seen it called Russia's Mosquito.
Here is what I have on the mid-war Pe-2FT:
Pe-2FT
Powerplant: two 1,260hp VK105PF V-12 engines
Performance: Maximum speed 279mph (449kph) at sea level and 360mph (580kph) at 13,125ft (4000m); service ceiling 28,870ft (8800m); range with 2,205lb (1,000kg) bombload 817 miles (1,315km)
Weights: empty 13,668lbs (6,200kg); maximum 18,783lbs (8,520kg)
Dimensions: span 56ft 2in (17.11m); length 41ft 11in (12.78m); height 11ft 3in (3.42m); wing area 436 sq ft
Armament: provision for four FAB-100 (220.5lb) bombs in internal bomb bay, two FAB-100 in rear of engine nacelles and four FAB-250 (551lb) bombs on external racks under center section; two 7.62mm ShKAS machine guns firing ahead aimed by pilot, MV-3 dorsal turret with single 12.7mm UBT, one 7.62mm ShKAS aimed by hand from rear ventral position
Now, the Pe-2 has been suggested not because it is a great MA bomber (though it is fast) but because with minimal work three versions can be done that would give the VVS a bomber for any stage of the war.
The best MA Russian bomber would be the Tu-2S:
Tu-2S
Powerplant: two 1,850hp Shvetsov ASh-82FN 14 cylinder radial engines
Performance: Maximum speed at full load 342mph (550kph) at medium altitudes; service ceiling 31,170ft (9,500m); range with 5,511lb (2,500kg) bombload 870 miles (1,400km)
Weights: empty (1943 production) 16,477lbs (7,474kg); maximum 25,044lbs (11,360kg)
Dimensions: span 61ft 10½in (18.86); length 45ft 3½in (13.8m); height 14ft 11in (4.55m); wing area 525 sq ft
Armament: two 20mm ShVAK cannon in the wing roots aimed by pilot, three single 12.7mm UBT machine guns aimed by crew; normal maximum bombload 6,614lbs (3,000kg) with provision for 8,818lbs (4,000kg) as overload
-
Been out of town for the weekend and havent had a chance to respond lately, but reading whats been posted heres what Ive come up with.
Citabria puts up a good arguement because yes, the B-24 was used by not only the British and American forces, but were delivered to (not sure if used by since they were defeated so quickly) the French.
Now yes, a four-engined heavy bomber will take a majority of HTC's resources to model correctly, as Brady has said. Yes, it would be more convienent to see more early-mid war planes, especially from Russia and Italy, instead of another late war heavy American bomber. I have no rejection against that, as I too would like to see several more planes added. I do think, however, that a B-24 should be higher on the priority list than other planes that would most likely see less use in the MA.
Now Brady, I know that the CT is lacking severly because of the limited planeset, especially in Pacific and Eastern Front scenarios. I would love to see more Russian and Japanese aircraft added to fill in these gaps, even if that means putting a B-24 on the shelf for a while.
For a CT bomber, I believe a G4M, Pe-2, or He-177 would benefit more than a B-24 for the fact that both the Japanese, German, and Russian sides in CT setups lack the bomber support that the Allies have.
As for an MA bomber, I believe the B-24 would benefit most. Reason being it is fast, heavily armed, and can carry around 8,000 pounds of bombs. There are many times I would like to have just that, but am not given the opportunity because the B-17 can carry at most 4 1000lbs or 12 100lbs, but offers the speed I like. The Lancaster carries more than ample bombs, 12 1000lbs, but severly lacks speed and climb rate because of it. A B-24 would provide a decent medium between them.
Here are specifications for a G4M, B-24, Tu-2S and He-177, and my number grade 1-10 (1 being lowest etc...) on how I feel they would compete in the CT and MA.*
G4M3 Model 34: Late War-
Top Speed: 292 mph (470 km/h) at 16,895 ft. (5150m)
Bomb Loadout: One 800 kg (1,764 lb) Torpedo or 1000 kg (2,205 lb.) of bombs
Armament: Four 20-mm cannon, Two 7.7-mm (0.303-in) machine guns
Range: 2,340 nautical miles
More Info: http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/IJARG/g4mbetty.htm or http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijna/g4m.htm
My rating: 6
B-24J: Early 1944-
Top Speed: 290 mph (467 km/h) at 25,000 feet, 303 mph (488km/h) at 15,000
Bomb Loadout: Up to 12,800 lbs. of bombs at absolute maximum amount
Armament: 10 x .50 cal MG
Range: 3200 miles empty weight
More Info: http://www.pacificwrecks.com/resources/tech/aircraft/liberator.html or http://www.aviationclassics.org.uk/b24.html
My rating: 8
Tu-2S: Mid-Late 1944-
Top Speed: Maximum speed at full load 342mph (550kph) at medium altitudes
Bomb Loadout: 1 2,204 lb bomb, or 2 1,102 lb bombs, or up to 3 2,204 lb bombs, Max of 6,613.
Armament: 3 0.3 inch SkHAS guns, 2 0.50 inch UB.
Range: 1242 miles
More Info: Karnak's post above, http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/tupotu2.html
My rating: 7.5
He-177: mid 1943-
Top Speed: 303 mph (488km/h) at medium altitudes
Bomb Loadout: 13,200 lb (6000kg)
Armament: 2 20 mm MG 151/20 guns, 3 MG 131 machine guns, 3 MG 81 machine guns
Range: 3,417 miles
More Info: http://www.ww2guide.com/germanb.shtml or http://users.belgacom.net/aircraft1/avion1/73.html
My rating: 9
Now, I have rated the He-177 as the best of the 4, but the He-177 process was a complete disaster, as quoted from http://users.belgacom.net/aircraft1/avion1/73.html:
"It is probably the most disastrous air program of the war. While initially intended as a four-engined maritime attack plane, new specifications imposed that it could operate as a dive-bomber and that the engines would be coupled two by two. It led to an never ending series of accidents, mainly engine fires while fying at cruising speed. When they finally reached the units in 1943, the accidents would continue. They served without much succes on the Eastern Front and played first part during the "litte Blitz" against Britain early in 1944, suffering heavy losses. Year 1944 was not yet ended that the fuel shortages put an end to their career."
Since HTC can't (or hasn't yet) really modeled in flight damages (such as electrical failures, engine fires in level flight, etc.) not caused by enemy fire, the He-177 would be an incredible plane if flown as the Germans had originally intended and worthy of perk status IMO.
*I didn't get all of my numbers off of these sites.
-
United,
You may want to look at your G4M numbers again as nobody is suggesting that the G4M3 be added. The request is for the G4M1 or G4M2 which lack any protection of any sort and have less defensive firepower. They do fly farther though.
I'd rate the G4M2 at about a 2 for MA suitability and it only gets that high because it has a 20mm cannon in the tail.
The Wellington Mk III is VERY tough for a twin, carries 4,500lbs but is slow as heck and only defended by a quad of .303s in the tail and a dual .303 nose turret. I give it a 3 for MA worthyness.
I'd rate the Pe-2FT at about a 4 due to speed.
The He177A-5 typically carried about 3,000kg, so I'd rate it about a 6.
The Tu-2S carries as much and is faster, but weaker on defensive firepower. I'd rate it about a 6 as well.
The Ju188A-2 is also fast and carries a like bombload, but also has a 20mm cannon in a turret. I give it a 7.
The B-24J carries 8,000lbs and is armed with 10 50 cals, but is a bit more fragile than the B-17G. I give it an 8.
The H8K2 is a flying boat, but it is a tough four engined aircraft with good defensive firepower and a decent bombload that includes the option for torpedoes. I give it an 8 as well due to the uniqueness of it being a flying boat.
The Mosquito B.Mk XVI is VERY fast and carries a single 4,000lb bomb while being completely unarmed. Due to the likely perking of the Mossie16 I give it a MA value of 5, or 9 without being perked.
The B-29A is very well defended, fast and has a HUGE bombload. I give it an MA value of 6 because it will be a perk plane. If, for some insane reason, it is not perked I give it a 10.
-
You may want to look at your G4M numbers again as nobody is suggesting that the G4M3 be added. The request is for the G4M1 or G4M2 which lack any protection of any sort and have less defensive firepower. They do fly farther though.
Whoops, I missed that, but I just went by the G4M that had the best numbers, and the 3 was it, and they were poor compared to the other 3 I specified.
A Wellington is probably not much of a necessity because a B-26 easily outclasses it, and with your numbers it appears that a Boston could serve the same purpose. Now, seeing it added to AH eventually would be fine with me, but I wouldnt fly it much at all.
Now, the numbers I got on the He-177 were very different than your bombload. I have that the He-177A-5 carried more (6000kg total) than the Lancaster. With the numbers I found, it seems the He-177 would be the bomber of choice for me, with the exception of a B-24.
Im not so sure about the Mosquito B.Mk XVI. I've never seen anything about this plane, and after a few quick Google searches I didnt find much relating to it. By your description of it, I probably wouldnt ever fly it. If it carries only 1 4000lb bomb, especially if it is unarmed, why would anyone fly it? Unless it has a top speed of over 450, I probably wouldnt touch it. Could you please shoot me some more info on this bird, because to me it seems that it wouldnt be much of an MA competitor, not at all a perk ride.
The H8K2 is a flying monster. Yes, it is substantially smaller than the B-29A, it is after all, a flying boat. 124 foot wingspan, 92 feet long :eek:. I also agree with you on this one because of the decent armament and comparable 4,408lbs bombload.
The B-29 is in a class of its own. HUGE bombload, incredible range, and extensive armament, I completely agree with you on the ratings. And yes, it'd better be a perk plane if modeled into AH.
Now, of those you listed, the only ones Id be alright with seeing in AH before a B24 would be the He-177A-5, or maybe the G4M2 for CT and SEA reasons only.
-
Originally posted by United
A Wellington is probably not much of a necessity because a B-26 easily outclasses it, and with your numbers it appears that a Boston could serve the same purpose. Now, seeing it added to AH eventually would be fine with me, but I wouldnt fly it much at all.
In terms of the MA I agree that the Wellington Mk III doesn't really add anything, but seriously neither does the Boston Mk III. The problem that the Boston Mk III has when used in the CT and scenarios as the Allied early war bomber is that it is simply too fast for the Axis fighters to intercept. I had one run down my Bf109E-4 at sea level, and from a lesser E state. The Wellington Mk III or B-25C are needed for the Allies so that early war setups have an Allied bomber that can actually be intercepted.
Originally posted by United
Now, the numbers I got on the He-177 were very different than your bombload. I have that the He-177A-5 carried more (6000kg total) than the Lancaster. With the numbers I found, it seems the He-177 would be the bomber of choice for me, with the exception of a B-24.
It could carry 13,000lbs like the B-17G could 16,000lbs. However, the B-17G usually carried 4,000 or 6,000lbs and the He177A-5 usually carried about 3,000kg I'd guess. Which loadout does the B-17G in AH have?
Originally posted by United
Im not so sure about the Mosquito B.Mk XVI. I've never seen anything about this plane, and after a few quick Google searches I didnt find much relating to it. By your description of it, I probably wouldnt ever fly it. If it carries only 1 4000lb bomb, especially if it is unarmed, why would anyone fly it? Unless it has a top speed of over 450, I probably wouldnt touch it. Could you please shoot me some more info on this bird, because to me it seems that it wouldnt be much of an MA competitor, not at all a perk ride.
The Mosquito Mk XVI has a top speed of 416mph and due to its bomb bay is faster when loaded than the Ar234 is when loaded. Yes, if the Mosquito XVI gets attacked from above by a P-51 or 109G-10 it is in a world of hurt, but.... Given the short radar range in AH it would be nigh impossible to plan to be above an incomming Mosquito XVI raid and there is simply no way that a fighter climbing at 150mph is ever going to catch the Mosquito. It boils down to the fact that you cannot climb to intercept it unless you are using an Me163 or, if you are willing to give a long chase, an Me262. The Bf109G-10 can get of to the needed altitude fastest of all free aircraft but would be so far behind that it would run out of fuel before catching the Mosquito. Like in WWII intercepting one would be more a factor of luck than planning. It may not be for you, but a nearly uninterceptable 4,000lb bomb needs perking.
To stop the suicide runs it would be used for if nothing else.
Originally posted by United
The H8K2 is a flying monster. Yes, it is substantially smaller than the B-29A, it is after all, a flying boat. 124 foot wingspan, 92 feet long :eek:. I also agree with you on this one because of the decent armament and comparable 4,408lbs bombload.
Actually, the H8K2 could carry two 1,500kg bombs giving it a good anti-HQ or other hardpoint tumpage capablity.
This thread is the ultimate H8K2 thread ever and will provide you with all the data you could want on it:
H8K2 Emily Information (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60283&highlight=H8K2)
Edit: Dang, pictures are gone. I can email them to you if you like.
-
All these heavy bombers B-24, B-29 etc... good for MA.
What about CT, ToD?
We need early war bombers:
For BoB, Early Eastern Front we must have Do-17.
What about it?..........
We need early war planeset also before all these MA mosters...
We must have I-16....
We must have Pe-2 at least one of them.......
We need early war planeset!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
G4M2 and Wellington Mk III are MA monsters?
We are discussing multiple aircraft, stemming from the pros and cons of adding B-24J now.
-
Ah, I had a nice response written up and my PC froze, so heres just a summary of what I had.
I do agree with you now about the Mossie 16. Cruising around in the high 300s low 400s, yes that would be a nice addition and a pleasent change from my usual rides.
According to Mitsu, the H8K2 has a cruise speed of 184mph, and max speed of 290, so I'd say most AHers would fly at full throttle, so it would probably fly at about the same speeds as the B-17. After reading most of Mitsu's posts and looking at all the data, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it showed up as a perk bird around 10-20 points each, mostly because of the heavy defensive armament.
Artik, there are gaping holes in the early war planeset for Russia mostly. But, if you add the I-16 you must think, how much action will it really get? 90% of players play in the MA, some exclusively. I'm betting that the I-16 would get used maybe as much as a P-40 or 109E-4. A Pe-2 would probably see as much usage as the B-26 does. A Pe-2 would be reasonably high on the priority list because it would be an asset to the MA, CT, and SEA. The I-16 would not.
A B-24J would see as much, if not more, usage as the B-17 does now. It too, would be a great asset to CT for use in all theaters of the war. With the new skinning capability, you could also create British as well as American B-24s. The B-24J is a good all-around bomber and would probably benefit more for all arenas, especially MA, than early war fighters.
Yes, the plane set is lacking, but I feel a B-24 should be higher on the priority list than an I-16 or Do-17 (which reminds me a lot of a heavier armed Ju-88).
-
Artik, there are gaping holes in the early war planeset for Russia mostly. But, if you add the I-16 you must think, how much action will it really get? 90% of players play in the MA, some exclusively. I'm betting that the I-16 would get used maybe as much as a P-40 or 109E-4. A Pe-2 would probably see as much usage as the B-26 does. A Pe-2 would be reasonably high on the priority list because it would be an asset to the MA, CT, and SEA. The I-16 would not.
Yes I agree we need Pe-2,
But also all early war Eastern front setup can not be really build without I-16...
yes it will not be used at MA but is will be in ToD, CT and SEA like 109E, P-40B, Spit I and Hurri I are used....
Finaly lots of nice early war eastern front setup could be done..... Land lease aircrafts do not suit early war setups......
I-16 can bring Spain Civilan War to CT, It will be good addition to FinRus etc....,
We defenatly need it
(http://www.nzfpm.co.nz/images/large/phil005.jpg)
-
Yes, the I-16 can make a Spanish Civil War Scenario in CT realistic, but think what a B-24 could bring:
Battle for Iwo Jima
Ploesti bombing raids
Battle for Wake Island
Invasion of Sicily and Italy
I'm betting the B-24 can add to more scenarios than the I-16 can. I'd like to see an I-16 modeled, but I feel a B-24 is higher on the priority list as of now.
-
Originally posted by United
There has been much discussion in several threads about the uses a B-24 could have in AH. Several of these facts are compared to B-17s. Heres my 2 cents.
1.) There were more B-24s made than any other bomber of WWII, and nearly 6000 more than B-17s.
2.) The B-24 was used in almost every theater of the war: European, Mediteranian, N Africa, Pacific, and North Atlantic.
3.) The B-24 served in many roles, including maritime patrol, antisubmarine work, reconnaissance, tanker, cargo and personnel transport, not to mention plain level bombing.
4.) The B-24 dropped nearly 630,000 pounds of bombs, as the B17 dropped around the same amount (I dont have any numbers to back this up for the 17)
5.) The B-24 had an excellent range, meaning it could fulfill the roles mentioned in #3 sufficiently.
6.) The B-24 had a heavy defensive armament, with 10 .50 caliber MGs covering every point on the bomber.
7.) The B-24 was the only allied aircraft capable of completing trans-atlantic flights.
8.) The B-24 had a higher max speed (303mph) than the B-17C/D/G (291-302)
9.) The B-24 had a higher cruising speed than the B-17F/G (160mph)
10.) The B-24 was capable of carrying a heavier bombload than the B-17.
B-24: 5000-8,800lbs
B-17: 4000-6000lbs
There are only a few downsides to the B-24 compared to the B17.(There are more but I cant think of them as of now.)
1.) The b-17 could take a lot more punishment from enemy fire than the B-24.
2.) The B-17 was easier to handle at altitude. The B-24 became very unstable above 25k because of the new Davis wing design.
You can compare specifications of different models of B-24s, and B-17s. http://www.ww2guide.com/usab.shtml
Now, with this data the following are the conclusions I made. The B-24 had a lengthy service in WWII, from the beginning to the end. It also served in just about every theater of the war, and there were more B-24s made than any bomber of WWII. Now, why shouldnt we have the B-24? It served just as well as the B-17, and i would argue it did better.
Besides, its just plain sexy!
(http://www.consolidatedmodels.com/assets/images/B-24J-01.jpg)
if u look at number ten ur wrong. the b17 could carry about 15,000lbs of bombs but rarely went into combat with more than 6,000lbs
-
"I'm betting the B-24 can add to more scenarios than the I-16 can. I'd like to see an I-16 modeled, but I feel a B-24 is higher on the priority list as of now."
The issue with the B-24 is that we have a plane already that can act and did act in it's stead and or operated in the same time and place as id it did and was prety much identical in game terms...the B-17. The I-16 on the other hand would be entirely New for a time and place plane for the following:
Russia(early war)
Spain
China
Finland
For early war we have No Fighter for these places that was operated by the Countrys that respecitely operated them, Nore do we have a bomber for those places and tiems and many others.
................
I spent over 2.5 years doing scenario set up's in the CT and the B-24 would add Nothing at present and in fact could do more harm than good in some respects by further compounding plane set imbalances that are present in the curent plane set in AH.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The Mosquito Mk XVI has a top speed of 416mph intercept it unless you are using an Me163 or, if you are willing to give a long chase, an Me262.
To stop the suicide runs it would be used for if nothing else.
.
chase-ing any Prop plane in a ME262 is never a long chase
the Mosquito Mk XVI is a hard plane to say how much use its going to get if its perked its going to get as much use as the ARE234 if its not then its going to get as much as the c.205 which is a odd plane to see but not rare
when it comes to who needs bombers
US needs a early war bomber
Japan needs a early war bomber
brits need a early war bomber
russ needs a bomber
Germ needs a late war bomber
but this list is for the 15 CT players everday
what does the MAIN need
LATE WAR
LATE WAR
LATE WAR
LATE WAR
-
You don't get it. Main don't need squat. :D
-
What's the point of having early war bombers in CT (G4M, B-25, ect) if 10-15 people in there want dueling...
-
Originally posted by simshell
chase-ing any Prop plane in a ME262 is never a long chase
It would be a long chase. Intercepts don't start co-alt. The Mosquito starts at 25,000ft going about 400mph and the Me262 starts on the runway going 0mph. First the Me262 has to take off and climb to 25,000ft. The whole time it is doing that the Mosquito is putting distance between it and the Me262. Once the Me262 reaches 25,000ft it then has to accelerate to a faster speed than the Mosquito and make up all the distance the Mosquito has built up. The overtake speed will not exceed 140mph, and the average overtake speed will be significantly lower due to the acceleration time.
The Me262 will overtake the Mosquito, but it will not be quick.
FWIW, I'll bet that a unperked Mossie 16 would be the base suicide porkers aircraft of choice. You can't miss with a 4,000lb bomb and it will get that bomb to the target faster than a P-51D will get it's two 1,000lb bombs there.
-
Why i support your request?
Well there are several reasons.
1: Aces High Heavy Bombing has taken on a new face in the Main Arena. With the new (Carpet Bombing Model) NME Strategic re-supply: Factories, Cities, Depots, and HQ are the targets of choice, and they should be. These targets are perfectly suited to this type of historic bombing. And contrary to popular belief, a well planed strike on this system can have a devastating, and lasting effect on the NME. WTG Hitech.
The problem with these strategic targets is that they are located deep into the NME zones requiring extra long-range flights. And these Long range Flights are LONGER that ever before with the larger maps we now use in the MA. The B17 and Lancaster that we currently have in the MA are running out of a Full Fuel Load on many of these long-range missions. A Raid on NME HQ will almost definitely end in a ditch. That is if one can survive those Pesky ME163s. There are 6 of us on our squad alone that are logging 2-hour flights, sometimes even longer. These missions almost always end in the Ditching of our Bombers.
2: The B24 Liberator had a very nice Armament Configuration that was comparable to the B17G.
A: TEN .50 Cal Machine Guns
B: Gun Positions in the Nose, Ball, Tail, Waist, and one Up stairs too!
C: Liberator had a Range of 2300 miles with a 5000 lb. Bomb Load.
Key Factor for AH with its new Larger Maps:
B17 had a Range of 1850 miles with a 4000 lb. Bomb Load.
While the B24 Liberator had a Range of 2300 miles with a 5000 lb. Bomb Load.
The B24 LIBERATOR if modeled historically, has a Greater Range than the B17 or the Lancaster we currently have in the AH Main Arena. It has an Armament configuration as good as the B17. And although it historically carried a smaller Bomb Load, it could carry more than enough bombs to make it a wonderful addition to the AH Heavy Bomber Menu.
After all, the B17 in AH is modeled to carry 6,000lbs Maximum Bomb Load. While in fact the B17G was capable of carrying 17,600 lbs of bombs!
The Lack of dedicated historical style Bomber Escort pilots in the Game means that us bomber pilots usually have to go alone. And the fact that a Single Fighter can take apart an entire Bomber formation, means a flight path that puts us on the target BEFORE we get jumped. Which almost always means taking the LONG WAY around!
Which in turn means major Fuel Consumption. We just want to RTB
-
Psy, you are correct, but also incorrect. The numbers I posted are of what each bomber carried into combat. Those numbers are correct. In real life, the B-17 could carry more bombs (17,800) than the B-24 (12,800) but that would be absolutely maxed out. The 24 usually carried more into combat.
Brady, I know that you have spent countless hours setting up CT events and things of that sort, and you do prove an excellent point. It wouldnt bother me at all to see several early war planes from the countries you listed before a B-24. Russia especially needs a few early war fighters, and at least one bomber. But I do still feel a B-24 would make more sense to model than other planes.
Mugzeee, I do agree with you. Range is now more important than it ever was in AH1 because of the new fuel consumption model. With squads like yours, I think that the B-24 would be the bomber of choice because of the long range and the large bomb loadout. If the larger combat loadout is used, then that means more range, 8,800lbs of bombs, and nearly the same gun assortment as the B-17.
Ike, when I fly in the CT, I usually am interested in bombing. There usually arent many players around, and if there are its usually hard to find them. I go to the CT mainly to bomb and try out different things.
-
Originally posted by simshell
.........
what does the MAIN need
LATE WAR
LATE WAR
LATE WAR
LATE WAR
Main Arena........
MA needs only following planes La7, Spit9, N1K, P-51D, Lancaster (to divebomb CVs), B-17 for ACK stars....... and time to time 109 190. and yes it needs B-29 with A-Bomb for HQ ;)
That what MA is.....
if you get B-24 it will have aboslutly same usage as B-17 they are planes of same class.....
......
US needs a early war bomber
Japan needs a early war bomber
brits need a early war bomber
russ needs a bomber
Germ needs a late war bomber
but this list is for the 15 CT players everday
.......
Yes CT players are really who cares of historical gameplay and not one big furball of all planes of all types....
........
anb BTW not only CT......
Look to the BoB scenario - about 200-250 players.....
It really needs Do-17 - also any erly war setup needs this plane....
it was one of most used ealry war LW bombers.......
We need planes of all periods.....
what about ToD - it will have historical setup and not virtual MA setups....... it also needs some early war planes.......
I have to mention.....
We defenetly have very good planeset for late war setups.....
but nothing for early........
-
Originally posted by Mugzeee
Why i support your request?
Well there are several reasons.
1: Aces High Heavy Bombing has taken on a new face in the Main Arena. With the new (Carpet Bombing Model) NME Strategic re-supply: Factories, Cities, Depots, and HQ are the targets of choice, and they should be. These targets are perfectly suited to this type of historic bombing. And contrary to popular belief, a well planed strike on this system can have a devastating, and lasting effect on the NME. WTG Hitech.
The problem with these strategic targets is that they are located deep into the NME zones requiring extra long-range flights. And these Long range Flights are LONGER that ever before with the larger maps we now use in the MA. The B17 and Lancaster that we currently have in the MA are running out of a Full Fuel Load on many of these long-range missions. A Raid on NME HQ will almost definitely end in a ditch. That is if one can survive those Pesky ME163s. There are 6 of us on our squad alone that are logging 2-hour flights, sometimes even longer. These missions almost always end in the Ditching of our Bombers.
2: The B24 Liberator had a very nice Armament Configuration that was comparable to the B17G.
A: TEN .50 Cal Machine Guns
B: Gun Positions in the Nose, Ball, Tail, Waist, and one Up stairs too!
C: Liberator had a Range of 2300 miles with a 5000 lb. Bomb Load.
Key Factor for AH with its new Larger Maps:
B17 had a Range of 1850 miles with a 4000 lb. Bomb Load.
While the B24 Liberator had a Range of 2300 miles with a 5000 lb. Bomb Load.
The B24 LIBERATOR if modeled historically, has a Greater Range than the B17 or the Lancaster we currently have in the AH Main Arena. It has an Armament configuration as good as the B17. And although it historically carried a smaller Bomb Load, it could carry more than enough bombs to make it a wonderful addition to the AH Heavy Bomber Menu.
After all, the B17 in AH is modeled to carry 6,000lbs Maximum Bomb Load. While in fact the B17G was capable of carrying 17,600 lbs of bombs!
The Lack of dedicated historical style Bomber Escort pilots in the Game means that us bomber pilots usually have to go alone. And the fact that a Single Fighter can take apart an entire Bomber formation, means a flight path that puts us on the target BEFORE we get jumped. Which almost always means taking the LONG WAY around!
Which in turn means major Fuel Consumption. We just want to RTB
All this is defenetly good but you foret one simple thing......
you want to increase flight range for bombers????????
Ask HT to give different fuel burn multiplayer for bombers.......
or just ask to set it 1.0 for histroical gameplay........
And BTW at all small maps I have no any problems to get with Ardo (!) to enemy HQ with 3x500kg bombs and return with 25% of fuel.....
So where are all B-17 and/or Lancaster raids on HQ at small maps?????
-
Originally posted by artik
All this is defenetly good but you foret one simple thing......
you want to increase flight range for bombers????????
Ask HT to give different fuel burn multiplayer for bombers.......
or just ask to set it 1.0 for histroical gameplay........
And BTW at all small maps I have no any problems to get with Ardo (!) to enemy HQ with 3x500kg bombs and return with 25% of fuel.....
So where are all B-17 and/or Lancaster raids on HQ at small maps?????
well sir...actually i haven forgoten. The Fuel Burn issue has been addressed since AH2 release.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=122511&referrerid=7566
PS. we must be careful of how we state our opinion. Sometimes ppl think we are whining and this look bad.
True about the small maps. no real problem.
But the Large maps will soon be in rotation.
As for the HQ?
the HQ was only used as an example. I repeat
The HQ is for example ONLY.
Many factories are far enough away to have the same effect on range.
-
I hope Panman see his P61 in AH2 Arena someday.
To all gamers asking for late war planes
Lets bring couple of early war planes to fill the huge holes in CT/SEA/ToD setups before asking new late war plane that we have enough
Need:
- Early Russian fighters
- Early/Mid Russian bombers
- Early LW bombers
- Early RAF bombers
- Some Japaneese bombers/fighters like Ki-84
These need before all B-24s, P-61s, B-29s and others......
:p
-
Originally posted by artik
- Early Russian fighters
- Early/Mid Russian bombers
- Early LW bombers
- Early RAF bombers
- Some Japaneese bombers/fighters like Ki-84
These need before all B-24s, P-61s, B-29s and others......
:p [/B]
Yes that is true. I agree with you in the fact that those aircraft are needed before the B-24s, B-29s, and so on. If you are being serious about the planes you listed that the MA needs, I completely disagree with you there. I'd like to see every WWII plane modeled eventually, but I'd absolutely hate to see planes taken away. Besides, theres no P-38, P-40, Mossie, or yak on there!:D
Mugzeee has a good point because with the new fuel consumption model, fuel is going to be harder to conserve therefore making long range bombing missions difficult. Thats where a long range bomber is needed, such as the B-24, which has a greater range than the B-17.
Now, if you dont like the idea of a late war American Heavy bomber, how bout the early war version?
B-24D
2,598 B-24Ds built by three factorys.
Wing Span: 110 ft. 0 in.
Length: 64 ft. 4 in.
Height: 17 ft. 11 in.
Weight: 56,000 lbs. loaded
Armament: Eleven .50-cal. machine guns
Bombload: 8,000 pounds of bombs in combat loadout.
Engines: Four Pratt & Whitney R-1830-43 supercharged radials of 1,200 hp. each (take-off power)
Maximum speed: 303 mph.
Cruising speed: 200 mph.
Range: 4,600 miles (max. ferry range); 2,850 miles w/ 5,000 lbs. bomb load
Service Ceiling: 32,000 ft.
Views of the B-24
3/4 front view (Port)
(http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b24d-1.jpg)
Front View
(http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b24d-3a.jpg)
Side View (Starboard)
(http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b24d-2.jpg)
3/4 Front View (Starboard)
(http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b24d-3.jpg)
Side View (Port)
(http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b24d-9.jpg)
Formation
(http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b24d-10.jpg)
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b2-38.htm for info
Looking at those numbers, the B-24J (mid-late war) has lesser numbers, but not by much. Late war doesnt always mean better.
-
:)
Yes it would be nice to have someday B-24.
all I want to said that we need lots of others before....
And as I see you agree with it to.....
-
Yes sir, I do. I've been saying in this thread every once in a while that I would much rather see the large gaps in the planeset filled in before we get a B-24, just I would like to see a B-24 before other birds like the B-29 or P-61.
:)
-
While anyone who knows me at all, or has ever read one of my "new planes" posts, knows that I think the most urgent need in the planeset is a mid-late war strike aircraft for the IJN (Judy or Grace would fit the bill), I think that the B-24d would be nice.
It would give us an early-mid war Pacific bomber. Of course, the B-17e would give us something even earlier, but that's another thread :)
A B-24D paired with a G4M would be a welcome addition for Pacific setups. But not until I get my IJN Strike plane lol.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
While anyone who knows me at all, or has ever read one of my "new planes" posts, knows that I think the most urgent need in the planeset is a mid-late war strike aircraft for the IJN (Judy or Grace would fit the bill), I think that the B-24d would be nice.
It would give us an early-mid war Pacific bomber. Of course, the B-17e would give us something even earlier, but that's another thread :)
A B-24D paired with a G4M would be a welcome addition for Pacific setups. But not until I get my IJN Strike plane lol.
-Sik
Here's the problem as I see it with folks asking for a B24D. The glass nose B24s were being phased out by the end of 43 when the B24H with the nose turret was arriving in the ETO for example with the new B24 Groups.
In the Pac, they were grafting tail turrets onto the noses of their B24Ds so they looked like later model 24s anyway.
If at some point they do 2 B24 versions, then do the glass nosed D model, but if and I understand it's a big if, they do a B24 variant, it's better to do a turret nosed version like the H or J as they were by far more numerous then the D and cover the ETO, MTO and Pac based B24 groups much better as well as the Aussies who flew them and the Brits.
And if you are going to do an early mid war B17, the F is much more accurate as the E was not in service in large numbers. The 19th and 43rd groups, flying with the 5th AF in the Pac had far more F models and outside of the first few missions of the 8th AF, the E model was done flying operations in favor of the F model by the end of September 42. and the chin turreted G models in action by the end of 43
Bottom line in a perfect world, you'd have the B17G and B24H/J as they cover more ground and it's easier to sub the later variant for the early models then vice versa as you are mainly talking armament set ups not performance as it was similar if not a little less due to the increased weights the turrets added.
For the skinners it makes sense too as you had both silver and OD/Gray 17Gs and 24Hs while you didn't have that with the early variants that were only OD/Gray.
Dan/Slack
-
Actually do we NEED Any more AC in AH2?. I mean in the literal sense?. A lot of early war planes Ah planes collect dust in the hanger even now. Even in the CT and other special events.
But i am willing to wait till Artik gets what he wants first .
I would love to see the B24 Liberator in AH2 in the future.
-
Originally posted by United
2,598 B-24Ds built by three factorys.
Looking at those numbers, the B-24J (mid-late war) has lesser numbers, but not by much. Late war doesnt always mean better.
Keep in mind the J was not the only version to carry the turret in the nose. You are talking 18,482 B24s produced of which 2,598 were D models and many of those D-models had nose turrets grafted on to the nose while in theater, in particular in the Pacific in the late summer of 43.
Throw in all the B24 variants that followed the D and you are talking close to 16 thousand built with nose turrets in one form or another. It wasn't just the J. The new groups that arrived in the ETO and MTO in late 43 were all equipped with the nose turreted H Model
Put it in the overall context of the game and the later nose turreted B24 makes better sense in particular for the scenario folks and the skin makers as it served in far more places with far more units and air forces.
You'd not find an RAAF glass nosed B24D but you'll find plenty of Turret nosed birds. Same goes for the RAF Liberators operating in the Pacific. Throw in that the turret nosed variants were both OD/Gray and later Silver with all those colorful group markings and it makes much more sense
The majority of the US Navy Liberators were also equipped with nose turrets which leaves that much more room for the skin makers to have some fun doing some of those birds too.
It might give those dreaming of PBY something to do too, driving around in a Navy Lib, patrolling the seas :)
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Here's the problem as I see it with folks asking for a B24D. The glass nose B24s were being phased out by the end of 43 [/B]
But what about the period between April '42 and the end of '43? That's what I was hoping to cover.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Mugzeee
Actually do we NEED Any more AC in AH2?. I mean in the literal sense?. A lot of early war planes Ah planes collect dust in the hanger even now. Even in the CT and other special events.
But i am willing to wait till Artik gets what he wants first .
I would love to see the B24 Liberator in AH2 in the future.
you are wrong buddy
109E, Spit I, Hurri I, F4F, A6M2, P-40B, 202
All of them are used in very high raito in CT and SEA,..... and we need more
Look to the BoB scneario - 200-250 players going to fly 109E vs Spit I/Hurri I
So do we need early war planes?
- Ealry War LW Bombers
- Early War RAF Bombers
- Early War Russian Fighters and Bombers
WE NEED THEM!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
But what about the period between April '42 and the end of '43? That's what I was hoping to cover.
-Sik
I understand that part. I'm trying to look at it with the idea we wouldn't get both a glass nose and a turret nose B24, so which makes more sense The 24 didn't even start operating in the Pacific until the end of 42 when the 90th BG flew their first mission in late November. And it was the CO of the 90th, Art Rogers who had his B24D modified with a grafted on B24 tail turret in the nose that essentially led to it being done at the production level.
The bomb load, performance etc of the later 24 was similar to the D model. If you can only have one. And of course AH may get no B24, it would make more sense to do the later turret nose version.
It was operated in more theaters, by more AFs then the D model and had far more paint schemes which would make it more fun for the skin makers.
This thread got me looking and with the D model you would be talking the Ploesti "desert pink" camo, the regular OD and gray, and potentially the early Navy gray and white paint schemes. Of course there were formation assembly ships, but they didn't fly combat.
With the later variants you are talking:
-OD/Gray with the 5th, 8th, 10th, 11th, 13th & 15th AFs as well as RAF 24s in the CBI and US Navy
-Silver-with the same AFs as well as RAF and RAAF
-All black 'Snoopers with the 5th AF and 8th AF
-All blue Photo recon F7 Libs
-All Gray 15th AF Pathfinder B24s
-Blue Gray Navy PB4Ys
-All dark Blue Navy PB4Ys
Throw in the much more colorful later war group markings and it's a skinner's paradise.
Both would be nice, but the 24H/J/M makes the most sense and the better compromise if we're lucky enough to get one.
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
The 24 didn't even start operating in the Pacific until the end of 42 when the 90th BG flew their first mission in late November.
In that case, I stand corrected (not sure where I got April from).
I have no use for the B-24 now.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by artik
you are wrong buddy
109E, Spit I, Hurri I, F4F, A6M2, P-40B, 202
All of them are used in very high raito in CT and SEA,..... and we need more
Look to the BoB scneario - 200-250 players going to fly 109E vs Spit I/Hurri I
So do we need early war planes?
- Ealry War LW Bombers
- Early War RAF Bombers
- Early War Russian Fighters and Bombers
WE NEED THEM!!!!!! [/B]
Nicely said "Buddy"! LOL
Nice attitude too.
Im sure i over stated when i said a "lot"... But arent there a few?
What are we considering "Early War"?
Best regards
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
I understand that part. I'm trying to look at it with the idea we wouldn't get both a glass nose and a turret nose B24, so which makes more sense The 24 didn't even start operating in the Pacific until the end of 42 when the 90th BG flew their first mission in late November. And it was the CO of the 90th, Art Rogers who had his B24D modified with a grafted on B24 tail turret in the nose that essentially led to it being done at the production level.
Dan/Slack
I made a remark at the B-24D because there were some shooting for early war birds, so I figured I'd give em an early war 24. I'd much rather see a J model than a D model, but I was just throwing out the suggestion of an early war American bomber. Your statements of a turret nosed B-24, such as the J, are all valid, but the B-24D didnt have just a glass nose. There were 3 machine guns pointing out of that. The only difference between the B-24D and the B-17G we have in AH is that the G had a mechanically operated turret, with 2 guns, and the B-24D had the hand-held gun in its place. Both aircraft have 2 machine guns that could cover the small range at 1-2 and 11-10 o clock.
As of now, im just trying to get ANY varient of the B-24, I dont care what it is. But, if (big if) we do get one, I'd like it to be the J.
-
Originally posted by Mugzeee
Actually do we NEED Any more AC in AH2?. I mean in the literal sense?. A lot of early war planes Ah planes collect dust in the hanger even now. Even in the CT and other special events.
But i am willing to wait till Artik gets what he wants first .
I would love to see the B24 Liberator in AH2 in the future.
Mugz .... AHII isn't WWIIOL .... or even "Tanks Low." Aircraft get priority in this game. Sure .. the GVset needs a couple of GVs (Sherman and T-34) ... but that's about it, really.
Early war planes only gather dust in the MA. The MA doesn't really even need to be a consideration as far as adding planes is concerned now. Early war planes get the crap flown out of them in the CT. If you'd been a semi-regular visitor there, you'd know. And saying they "gather dust" in special events simply shows you don't really know what a special event is. :aok
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Mugz .... AHII isn't WWIIOL .... or even "Tanks Low." Aircraft get priority in this game. Sure .. the GVset needs a couple of GVs (Sherman and T-34) ... but that's about it, really.
Early war planes only gather dust in the MA. The MA doesn't really even need to be a consideration as far as adding planes is concerned now. Early war planes get the crap flown out of them in the CT. If you'd been a semi-regular visitor there, you'd know. And saying they "gather dust" in special events simply shows you don't really know what a special event is. :aok
Arlo...why do you insist in chasing my all over the BBS to challenge my every Post?
My reply didnt say that Gv should be added and AC shouldnt.
As i said... I am willing to wait till the Special event guys get what they need. Read it. And yes i participated in Special Events a few in AH1, have played in the CT many many times and have participated in SE countless times in AW.
I certianly understand the lack of the early war plane set to accomadate the Special events (Substitutions have to be used constantly). Yes there are a few early War Ac collecting dust in the hangers. Please...if you cant be nice...then bug out.
-
"Actually do we NEED Any more AC in AH2?" -Mugzeee
You were being a dumbarse again. *ShruG* Stop being a dumbarse. :D
-
United:
The B-24 looked like a truck, hauled like a truck, and flew like a truck. :)
Rafe
-
Originally posted by Rafe35
United:
The B-24 looked like a truck, hauled like a truck, and flew like a truck. :)
Rafe
But it did what it was supposed to and some. :D
-
Hey United.
What are the markings on the 24 in your avatar?
Can't quite make them out. Kinda partial to 454th BG,15th AF B24s myself
"My" B24 crew
http://www.worldwar2pilots.com/b24intro.htm
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Hey United.
What are the markings on the 24 in your avatar?
Can't quite make them out. Kinda partial to 454th BG,15th AF B24s myself
"My" B24 crew
http://www.worldwar2pilots.com/b24intro.htm
Dan/Slack
Theres really no markings, its just a model of a silver B-24J with the standard USAAF star. I dont have the original picture, its been lost in the many freezes/crashes my PC has, but there is a tail number, but I cant read it.
Thats a great write up there on the link you gave. Wonderful work being done there.
-
Originally posted by United
Theres really no markings, its just a model of a silver B-24J with the standard USAAF star. I dont have the original picture, its been lost in the many freezes/crashes my PC has, but there is a tail number, but I cant read it.
Thats a great write up there on the link you gave. Wonderful work being done there.
Thanks. That's been an ongoing project of mine for over 10 years now, off and on.
When I started there were 3 of the crew still living. Now it's down to 1. Can't slow down time sad to say
Dan/Slack
-
I hear ya. My granddad was a gunner on a B-24J and, since he lived so far away from us, I never got much of a chance to talk to him, so now im searching off and on for info on his crew and plane.
Hope all works out for ya!
-
Originally posted by United
I hear ya. My granddad was a gunner on a B-24J and, since he lived so far away from us, I never got much of a chance to talk to him, so now im searching off and on for info on his crew and plane.
Hope all works out for ya!
Do you know what group he was with? Might know where to point you for more info if you want it
Dan/Slack
-
7th air force
11th bomb group
431st squadron
He flew on the "Kay Lucy" and mostly on "Chute the Works".
(http://www.b24bestweb.com/images/B24/CHUTETHEWORKS2.JPG)
There is a great link here, http://www.armyairforces.com/forums/gforum.cgi that may have more info for what youre doing.
-
Originally posted by United
7th air force
11th bomb group
431st squadron
He flew on the "Kay Lucy" and mostly on "Chute the Works".
There is a great link here, http://www.armyairforces.com/forums/gforum.cgi that may have more info for what youre doing.
Been there done that :) I take it you've been to B24 Bestweb too. I've got a few images there from the Fry Crew research.
(http://www.b24bestweb.com/images/B24/SANANTONIOROSE-V2.JPG)
Fascinating stuff to be sure
Dan/Slack
-
Yup, and that J suuuuuure would be perty in AHII! :D
-
Guppy, youve got some great pictures on that site and I was wondering if I could use some of them on a site I am builing on WWII aircraft? Of course theyd have your site mentioned in the description and it would be in the reference page.
-
Originally posted by United
Guppy, youve got some great pictures on that site and I was wondering if I could use some of them on a site I am builing on WWII aircraft? Of course theyd have your site mentioned in the description and it would be in the reference page.
If you are talking about the WW2 pilots home. That isn't my site. It's an old airwarrior buddy's site. His Dad was a B26 Marauder pilot.
I'd like to think I nudged him a bit to dig more into the history, but he clearly ran with it :)
The story of the Bracelet in the Sand was one he got me going on when he saw someone looking for info as he knew that doing that kind of research is my hobby/passion.
He was kind enough to post the stuff on 'my' B24 crew on his site as well as the 447th BG B17 crew research.
You could e-mail him and ask him about using stuff though. Tell him +Tiff sent you thataway :)
Dan/Slack
-
Excellent, thankee :)
-
A good B-24 picture
(http://www.ploiesti.net/Gallerys/Rare/!b-24mis.jpg)
Shows on a mission where the elevator control cables were shot out and the pilot safely returned the bomber home using ailerons and engines only. Great flying by a great pilot in a great bird. :D
-
We need a good perk bomber, something besides an Arado. I say B-29 would be good as it has speed and a good load of ords, or let us select a 20mm defensive gun set for a few bomber perk points. Anything to enhance the bombing game would be nice. And why in the heck can we not man all gun positions in a bomber group? You could in AW...