Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: GRUNHERZ on August 27, 2004, 01:47:25 AM
-
:)
(http://www.oldgloryprints.com/Most_Memorable_Day.jpg)
-
Cause it looks cool.....maybe?
-
Cause you could kill all three in one pass.
-
'Cause it'd be even more useless than the Boston in the MA and almost useless in the CT and Scenarios?
-
Follks always complain about the Ki67s speed, especially the allied farm bois in the CT.
The boston is actaully faster then the ki-67 below IIRC 15k.
Folks will tell you the ki-67 has 20mm but its easy enough to avoid given its location. With that in consideration the boston is about as well defended.
The 303s in the nose give it an offensive capability the ki67 doesnt have.
I dont see why some one would say the boston is useless. Its much faster then the the ju88, faster then the ki67 below 15k, has offensive guns and a larger bomb load.
The problem is with the b26 in the main why talke a boston?
With an a20 why take a boston?
There hasnt been any scenario that I can recall to utilize to boston. We tried in Kurland but the consensus was to use the ki67.
In the Ct with low numbers and a mostly fighter pilot player base no bomber get used all that much.
Maybe its time for an event based on RAF "CIRCUS" and "RHUBARB" operations.
Some one do a write up. SO / CAP etc...
Spit 5 Hurri 2c Boston
109F4 190A5 (A-3/A-4 sub)
-
Follks always complain about the Ki67s speed, especially the allied farm bois in the CT.
Who complains about the Ki67's speed in the MA? And the only complaints about the Ki67 in the CT come when it is available during 1942 setups, when the P-40B and F4F can't catch up with it. The Japs never had a bomber that could out run the US fighters it was up against.
ra
-
i think the blen is one of the most beautiful a/c ever made.... utterly useless apart from being bait.. but beautiful..
(http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/e/ed/Blenheim.550pix.jpg)
(http://www.sweptwings.co.uk/images/dux_as_6_2003_blenheim_1as.jpg)
(http://www.airventure.de/riat2002/Bristol.jpg)
(http://www.richard-seaman.com/Wallpaper/Aircraft/Bombers/BlenheimBankingLeft.jpg)
-
Wotan,
I agree that a slower Allied bomber is needed. I well remember having a Boston Mk III run my Bf109E-4 down. It irritates me when the Allied players whine about the Ki-67 and completely ignore how impossible the Boston Mk III is for the Axis to deal with.
However the massively fragile Blenheim has much less defense than the Ki-67 (perhaps you overlooked the two 12.7mm machine guns in the tail), a top speed of 265mph with only 1,000lbs of bombs. I'd have no objection the the Blenheim light bomber being added, but not at the expense of the Allied side having a usable bomber for the 1940 and 1941 time frame.
My suggestion for that would be a Vickers Wellington Mk III medium bomber. The Wellington had a reputation for being very durable, but it only has a top speed of 255mph. It was armed with eight .303 machine guns, two in the nose turret, four in the tail turret and one in each beam position. It also had a usable payload of 4,500lbs. The Wellington meets the requirments of being a usable, yet sufficietly vulnerable, early war Allied bomber.
-
Yes I agree on the Wimpy. You may recall replying in a thread along time ago when I requested a wimpy.
But the blenheim would still have use.
RA,
Search the CT forums. In those same setups where the Ki67 was available so was the Boston. You prove the point focusing on the Ki67 while ignoring the Boston.
The Boston is faster at alt where folks fight in the CT, carries more bombs can be flown as a fighter. If you think catching a Ki67 is hard in a F4F try catching a Boston in an A6M2 or 109E-4.
Next try killing it with type 99 mk 1s / mgff compared to 50s.
Typical farm boi response.
Why dont you go test the speeds of the planes in question then test their lethality. I already know the answers but maybe you will learn something.
-
The blen only had 1 forward firing .303 cal in one side wing root. Some did have a periscope-operated chin mount with 4x .303s firing rearward, but AH2 can't do periscopes (as evidenced by the Ar234)
and it REALLY has a sucky bomb load. I'd rather have a more medium bomber (whereas the blen is more "light").
-
wimpy would be cool, what about a hampden too? could also carry a torp which is a plus.
And also the Short Stirling is a good early war bomber, first op in feb 1941.
-
RA,
Search the CT forums. In those same setups where the Ki67 was available so was the Boston. You prove the point focusing on the Ki67 while ignoring the Boston.
The CT is supposed to be historical planesets. How is the Boston not historical in the Pacific in 1942? The allies always had fast bombers available, and the Japs mostly had slow fighters. But the Ki-67 is completely non-historical in 1942, it is not a stand-in for any 1942 Jap bomber. The Ju-88 would be better as a stand-in for the Betty.
How often did the Japs encounter Blenheims or Wellingtons in 1942?
If you want to make the CT a mini-version of the MA, just say so. But currently the concept is to make historical plane matchups.
"Typical farm boi response.
Why dont you go test the speeds of the planes in question then test their lethality. I already know the answers but maybe you will learn something."
Perhaps you could be more condescending?
ra
-
It isn't just the Pac that has problems with the Boston. The Bf109E-4 cannot deal with it either.
I remember shooting one down in a Bf110C-4b. Thing absorbed half my cannon ammo and took longer to kill than a fighter for all it's twisting and turning.
You say that the Allies always had fast bombers in the Pac. Let me ask you, how often did they run at full throttle 100% of the time. The full throttle 100% of the time distorts bomber interception more than any other factor in AH and it universally affects all bombers.
For the early war bombers I'd pick:
B-25C Mitchell
G4M2 "Betty"
Wellington Mk III
That should fix both early war Pac and Euro settings.
-
The full throttle 100% of the time distorts bomber interception more than any other factor in AH and it universally affects all bombers.
It affects all fighters too.
Dot-dar sure evens things out when it comes to intercepting buffs.
As for the Mitchell, its defensive firepower would more than make up for its lower speed vis-a-vis the Boston. Either way, A6M2's have a tough nut to crack.
ra
-
My only qualm about the B25 C is that it was the fastest B25 variant of all (lol)
-
ra,
Better the porcupine that you can catch than the rabbit that you can't. Fast bombers were, plane for plane, far more efective than armed bombers in WWII.
Re: Throttle,
Yes it does affect fighters too, but in reality fighters were far, far more likely to be flying on full throttle than bombers.
Krusty,
OK, B-25B then. I'm not a B-25 fan and so don't know much about them. Pick a slow one that is early war. Having one also opens up the possibility of getting the B-25H and B-25J that people seem to want so badly.
-
No. no, you got it right. B-25C is the most likely early candidate. But as it improved later it got heavier and slower, is all.
I'm all for a B-25, but I still think people will say B-25 is out of place for the "early" bomber set.
-
The CT is neither historical nor any more "real" then the main. It’s a main with a limited plane set. Everything you see in the main happens in the CT.
In an arena where you have base capture as a rule then all sides need to have similar capabilities. They aren’t recreating history they are playing a game. Even with the Ki-67 as a stand in it carries a limited bomb load and as long as it isn’t at 16k + it isn’t any faster then the allied fighters.
The Betty max speed 272 mph (438 km/h) at 15,090 ft (4600 m)
The Peggy max speed is 334 mph (537 km/h) at 19,980 ft (6090 m)
At 15k the Peggy does 316 or so...
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/ki67speed.gif)
Both the Betty and Peggy are similarly armed.
The Ju-88 has much weaker defensive armament. When the Ju-88 was subbed in for the Betty folks complained of its bomb load and interestingly enough its "toughness". You would see the return of dive bombing JU-88's with huge bomb loads porking CVs or doing suicide torpedo runs with their 6 torpedos per formation etc...
Folks didn’t want the Ju-88 they wanted no axis offensive capability other then the Val and Kate. A quick comparison of the Ki-67 vs. the Ju-88 in the CT seems to indicate that the Ju-88 with its larger bomb load would have a great impact then the Ki-67. In fact the only way the Ki-67 becomes troublesome is when folks chase after them. Left alone you would hardly know they are there.
I did not say the Boston didn't belong or shouldn't be used. What I said was that folks complained of the ki67s speed. When folks complained about the Ki67 they weren’t complaining just on historical reasons.
They said it was too fast period neglecting the fact that the Boston was faster.
'42 - '43 in New Guinea / Solomon’s the Boston didn’t make up the majority of Allied bombers either.
In the CT they just recently subbed the Boston for the Blenheim in the CT for ‘41 Circus btw...
Let’s not pretend were talking about “historical accuracy”.
-
I would like to see the G4M2 "Betty" in AH. It is a neat bomber that played an important, if not particularly successful, role in WWII.
However, adding the G4M2 without addressing the sister issue of the Boston MK III will just further exacerbate the imbalance we already have when matching the D3A1 (1937) against the SBD-5 (1943) and B5N2 (1938) against the TBM-3 (1943).
Both sides need to be balanced/fixed, or neither.
-
ok for a useless bomber how about fairy battle or slightly heavier a whitly.
I would love to see a whimpy or a beaufort especialy on oskanass with all the shiping to kill.
At the moment american bombers rule.
we need some german bombers and italian and japanese, and a early british pair.
most guys only like to furball in fighters but some guys do like buf and would like something different.
but please please no b29:p
rogerdee
-
With the current AH planeset I don't see the Blenheim coming along soon... We need more early war planes before the Blenheim. But the Blenheim was a fast bomber at the beginning of it's career. Well, the fighters developed quickly at that time and soon the Blenheim wasn't fast enough - and it had light defensive armament. :(
But it would be a nice addition, since Finns had those (in operation both in the Winter War 1939-40 and in the Continuation War 1941-44). But I really don't see it as a soon-to-be addition... I'd much rather have the Brewster and some Pe-2's or other targets for the Brewster. ;)
-
Man there are so many planes they need to introduce for ToD...
I for one would love to see the Whimpie, Blen, Betty, He-111, and the DB-3 come to AH.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Furball
i think the blen is one of the most beautiful a/c ever made.... utterly useless apart from being bait.. but beautiful..
THe early model with the sleek canopy is even better looking! :)
(http://www.military.cz/british/air/war/bomber/blenheim/blen_gr_bw.jpg)
Gotta have the Blenheim!
And next, biplane fighters!
-
better looking whilst in your gunsight? :D
-
When I get my Cr42 I'll be curing all you straosphere runninmg Blenein dweebs!
-
mmmm Blenheim....
(http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/kuvat/WW2History-nightofthebombers-bl.jpg)
One of those planes that was used from 1939 to the end of the war, jum jum. Definitely worthly addition :)
-
the 2 british early war bombers i would like to see added to AHare the blenheim and the vickers wellington.
both of them stayed in service untill the end of the war
-
Furballl mentioned the Stirling, now there's something.
It's basically equal to the Lancaster, except for high alt performance. It has a heavy bombload, a very big bay, and could carry a horrendous lot of light bombs, something like 60 if I recall right.
It was much earlier ready than the Lancaster and was used on Circus operations.
I'd bet it could see use in AH as an airbase carpet-bomber.
60 bombs x 3 would make it THE PORKMASTER. 1 pass......