Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: TexMurphy on September 22, 2004, 01:58:23 PM
-
http://www.internetelite.ru/aircrafts/tu-2s.html
-
your wrong
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/superfly/b24j.jpg)
-
Cool. Check out the first skin on the page:
http://www.angelfire.com/fm/odyssey/B-24J.htm
h
-
Originally posted by vorticon
your wrong
What about his wrong?
-
Oh well, I was hoping for any decent bomber other than the B-24. This thing won't add much to the game. Whinewhinewhine...
-
Won't it be useful for TOD?
-
It will be useful for ToD, but so would a lot of bombers. Not that I care, bomber suck anyway.
However, the B24 is much loved and desired by a lot of folks and it does look great.
-
My guess on a russian bomber was based on the fact that for ToD the russians need alot of love in the bomber department.
From that aspect seriously do we need another US bomber?
From the aspect of AH2:Classic isnt it booring to have sooo many US planes and soo few italian, russian and to some extent japanese planes?
That said it does look really nice... but then again by the standards of the Ki-84, the AH2 planes, they all will look good...
Tex
-
Well, I guessed right that it would be the B24 but please tell me we aren't getting the version without the dorsal turret! That would be a major bummer when dealing with overhead attacks.
Also...
I too was hoping we'd get a bomber from a less represented country, I was hoping for the HE111 personally, especially because I always find that BoB scenarios with just JU 87s & 88s are downright historically silly. I would love to have seen an Italian bomber for Med scenarios or a Russian one for the East Front or even the much needed Betty for the Pac.
But at present I think we have to realize that the MA rules and HTC is going to produce the planes people there want to fly. The Ki84 and the B24J are going to be massively popular planes in the MA, in fact I fully expect the 84 to become the new Nikki and for the B24J to become more popular than the B17. From a customer service point of view these planes just make more sense.
Oh, and you experten will have tons of fun for a few days racking up the perk points on the Dweebs trying to master the Ki84. I plan to resist the urge to fly one for several days.
:D
- SEAGOON
-
I can see the upper turret. It's almost transparant but it is there just above and behind the cockpit area.
-
Oh yes, right you are... my bad.
Phew.
- SEAGOON
-
B-24J. Its got 10 .50s, all in good positions. You wont have much of a problem knocking anything out of the sky. :aok
-
Originally posted by United
B-24J. Its got 10 .50s, all in good positions. You wont have much of a problem knocking anything out of the sky. :aok
It has ten .50s, but you will have trouble knocking stuff down. Bombers, all bombers, have it a lot rougher now than they used to. The B-24J's firepower will help, but it will still be at a disadvantage against any decent fighter.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
It has ten .50s, but you will have trouble knocking stuff down. Bombers, all bombers, have it a lot rougher now than they used to. The B-24J's firepower will help, but it will still be at a disadvantage against any decent fighter.
Thats what I get for not flying AHII. :D
Oh well, I'd give a B-24 a better chance at knocking down a fighter than the B-17, but thats just IMO.
-
Originally posted by United
Oh well, I'd give a B-24 a better chance at knocking down a fighter than the B-17, but thats just IMO.
That may be, but I also give the fighter a better chance at downing the B-24. The B-17 was so over built that it was significantly more durable. It is likely that the Lancaster was also more durable.
-
Bomber guns in AH are still over accurate..
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/334_1095886171_b24.jpg)
-
Heh.
That looks pretty close to what I was getting out of my Ki-67's guns last night, Wotan.
You are right that they are still more accurate than in reality, but the fact is that is they get any weaker they will be absolutely useless and bombers will go away completely.
The bombers here don't have massive formations to offer mutual support. They are all effectively stragglers. Further there is no structure that enforces massive bomber formations and no target valuable enough to motivate the players to form such formations themselves.
-
First, formations weren't that "massive" in rl. They were about a max of 36 planes in a squadron, stacked. These "formations / squadrons" were spaced over hundreds of miles. The idea that 100s of planes flew in some sort of mutual suporting formation is nonsense.
Second, even with the bombers in these formations the accurracy of their defensive fire was low. The best strategy to project the bombers was to intercept the enemy fighters before they could attack, particularly while they were forming up.
You are right that they are still more accurate than in reality, but the fact is that is they get any weaker they will be absolutely useless and bombers will go away completely.
One can only hope, but in events in ToD where we see larger formations of bombers they have the added advantage of more accurate fire power. This usually gets offset by the lag in that the bomber gunners while in large formations and attacked by large groups of fighters have trouble tracking the attackers due to the warps that follow.
Most bomber formations in events when they get attcked are attacked until they are entirely destroyed. This is because of the suicide nature of the attacker and an improper undisciplined escort strategy..
However, in AH most bomber sorties consist of 3k noe suicide raids or the much talked about "4 eng dive bombers". I could argue that if the bomber defense guns were as accurate as rl then it would force folks to fly them in a more realistic fashion. But we both know that isn't true.
First, there's very little reason to fly bombers now. Large gaggles of fighter-bomber raids and much more efficient.
Second, despite all this call for "organization and team work" folks would just stop flying them all together as you suggest. Which wouldn't be a bad thing imo but woulkd alienate the 15 or so guys that are regular bomber types.
-
Well, last night DKPotter and myself were in Ki-67s at 20,000ft. Enroute to the target I drove off an Fw190 and hiting it with a few rounds for no visible damage. As we bombed a Rook city there was an La-7 that was closing on DKPotter's formation, but it broke off after we dropped our bombs.
On the return leg an Fw190 (the same one from earlier?) attacked. From 800 yards out it killed the tailgunner on DKPotter's main bomber and closed with his formation. After setting one of his bombers ablaze it looped to come around again. As it set up it's next pass I plinked it a few times with my nose guns, but had to expend nearly all of the ammo to do so. It attacked him again and heavily damaged another Ki-67, but he said he'd hit it with some 20mm rounds.
It then broke off it's attack on DKPotter and came for me. Flying straight up my 6 'oclock it took out one of my bombers before I finanly managed to bring it down with wing damage to it's out right wing.
-
Originally posted by United
B-24J. Its got 10 .50s, all in good positions. You wont have much of a problem knocking anything out of the sky. :aok
how many rounds per gun?
i hope the gunner's firing model is tweaked a bit. as it is now, D1000 seems to be the closest possible shot. :confused: by D800, that Fw is blowing pieces off your bomber. :(
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Heh.
That looks pretty close to what I was getting out of my Ki-67's guns last night, Wotan.
You are right that they are still more accurate than in reality, but the fact is that is they get any weaker they will be absolutely useless and bombers will go away completely.
The bombers here don't have massive formations to offer mutual support. They are all effectively stragglers. Further there is no structure that enforces massive bomber formations and no target valuable enough to motivate the players to form such formations themselves.
Thats because there is little strategical impetus for them to do so. If there were a few higher bases and real targets for raids such as a ENY limiter factory etc... then there would be more use.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Bomber guns in AH are still over accurate..
Why only post that picture and not a corresponding screenshot to validate your statement or at least mention some specifics? I just did a quick test firing of the Martin turret on the B-17 and it also shows a 20 foot pattern at 600 yards.
-
From a gameplay standpoint, the bomber guns issue is no win.
If the bomber guns are accurate and powerful the fighter jocks scream about turbo lasers and flak wagons. If the bomber guns are inaccurate and suitable only for backyard plinking the bomber guys complain and the fighter jocks (who must have something to whine about) complain about the fact that the bombers can still hit things with their bombs or are flying to low or too high or don't blow up quickly enough and so on...
Did I prefer the AH1 bomber guns model? Heck yeah, I don't generally even fly bombers anymore out of sheer frustration but am I going to insist on yet another adjustment so I can shoot fighters down again and get shot down by bombers myself when I'm in a fighter? No, what would be the point? At least when the bomber community ox is being gored, its a smaller group doing the complaining.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Pyro
I just did a quick test firing of the Martin turret on the B-17 and it also shows a 20 foot pattern at 600 yards.
First, isn't it "feet" instead of yards?
Second, where is the merge set at, Pyro? I can't tell.
Thank you.
-
Originally posted by TBolt A-10
how many rounds per gun?
i hope the gunner's firing model is tweaked a bit. as it is now, D1000 seems to be the closest possible shot. :confused: by D800, that Fw is blowing pieces off your bomber. :(
From what Ive read, it varies. Ive read that B-24Js carried anywhere from 5000 to 7000 rounds of ammo total (meaning all guns: Nose, Tail, top turret, ball turret, and both waist positions). Im not sure, but I believe it is a little less than the B-17G modeled in AH carries.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
That may be, but I also give the fighter a better chance at downing the B-24. The B-17 was so over built that it was significantly more durable. It is likely that the Lancaster was also more durable.
I think that's the impression people got but I don't know that it's completely accurate.
Part of it was that the 17 is clearly the more photogenic of the two. It got the better press, and served with the 8th which got the most coverage.
I would have believed it until I got hooked in researching a B24 crew for a guy whose brother had been killed in one. It was a tough beast too.
Of the 18 missions flown by 'my crew' before they were downed by flak over Vienna they took fairly heavy damage on at least 5 of them, including losing two engines, losing a single engine, having a flak shell go through the bomb bay, taking out the doors and catwalk and going out the top of the plane. They had flak knock out the windshield as well and finally went down to a direct hit by a flak shell in the cockpit that killed both pilots and blew out the roof. Even then had someone been able to fly it, the 24 might have gotten down ok.
And on an earlier flight they had run out of fuel over the Adriatic and the pilot was able to stretch the glide to get it down fairly intact just beyond the beach.
I could post photos of an 8th AF 24 coming home with only one elevator and rudder. Theres photos of one coming home with a huge hole in the wing, large enough to make you wonder why it didn't snap. Lots of photos of blown out bomb bay doors, fuselage missing etc. Just like the 17s.
There's even an 'action' photo taken of a 380th BG B24 with a full bomb load pulling out of a straight nose down dive towards the water. If you believe what you hear, it should have ripped the wings off, but they got it back intact.
17 just got better press :)
Dan/Slack
-
17 was all around better.
it didn't get heavy above 25k like the 24 did.
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
17 was all around better.
it didn't get heavy above 25k like the 24 did.
I completely disagree with you. The only factful statement you made was that the 24 got harder to fly at high alt.
-
Originally posted by United
I completely disagree with you. The only factful statement you made was that the 24 got harder to fly at high alt.
It's amazing what a little publicity and a movie or two can do to convince folks about things isn't it United :)
17 was out of combat by late 43 in the Pacific. They wanted 24s. Better range, bombload etc.
B24s filled 15 of the 21 bomb groups operating out of Italy with the 15th AF. That leaves 6 for the 17.
11th AF in the Aleutians flew 24s in that gawd awful weather consistantly. 13th AF in the Pacific was 24s. RAF and RAAF in the CBI was 24s. The Navy flew numerous Squadrons with 24s.
Only with the 8th did the 17s outnumber the 24 groups. But of course the movies got made about the 8th and the press was better so the 17 got most of it
Dan/Slack
-
Guppy,
The reason for the 24s being preffered in those theaters came down to one reason only and it wasn't payload, flying characteristics or durbility. It was range.
I might agree with you about it all being due to films if the Germans didn't also count the B-17 as markedly tougher with np prompting from Hollywood.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Guppy,
The reason for the 24s being preffered in those theaters came down to one reason only and it wasn't payload, flying characteristics or durbility. It was range.
I might agree with you about it all being due to films if the Germans didn't also count the B-17 as markedly tougher with np prompting from Hollywood.
No question range was a huge issue in particular in the Pacific. And I'm not saying that in terms of overall construction the 17 wasn't the tougher bird.
I think the misconception is that the B24 was somehow 'fragile' and couldn't take damage. And that it was that much tougher to fly. It did the job and did it well in every theater of operations
They argued back and forth during war about it between the 17 guys and 24 guys. It's an old discussion :)
As for the LW guys, I imagine it's a bit like the Spit vs Hurri kills. Reputation means a lot. 17 being the Spit of course and the 24 the Hurri.
And in the end you couldn't have done the job without both.
Dan/Slack
-
Summed it up nicely there Guppy. I think the only reason the 24 is less famous and well-known is because of the publicity the 17 recieved. In England, you could have press members and cameramen set up along runways and things of the sort. In the Pacific, it was constant action and there were no permanent bases, nor were there any actual safe points near the front lines. Everyone wanted to see Hitler's army get smashed, the Japanese were almost a side-note to what was going on in Europe. But, thats just my take.
-
Originally posted by Pyro
Why only post that picture and not a corresponding screenshot to validate your statement or at least mention some specifics? I just did a quick test firing of the Martin turret on the B-17 and it also shows a 20 foot pattern at 600 yards.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/334_1095932891_b17.jpg)
Yes I did test the gun dispersion but only on the b17’s tail gun. However, this was it was some time ago. As far as I know there's no way to change a setting that would allow the bomber guns to be fired on the ground.
I do not know if that changed in Ah2 but at the time I did my tests it was a real hassle getting everything "right" to test it.
Here's what I did:
1. From the b17 tail turret I took a screen shot of a 190d9. No zoom just standard view. The 190 flew level dead astern co alt.
2. I upped a b17 with low fuel no bombs, climbed to 1000ft and went into level auto pilot heading due south. I then set wind to 200 (IIRC) and shut off the b17 eng in an attempt to "hover". I felt this was necessary because the target flies along with the bomber maintaining 600yrds spacing. As such it would give me a false reading. The target would actual "fly into the bullet stream" and affect the dispersion pattern as the range isn’t really 600yrds. I guess I could have attempted the math but for what ever reason I tried the wind.
It was a real pain trying to get the b17 centered on the target and took many frustrating attempts. I got "close enough" for my liking and fired about 25 rounds and took an ss.
3. I then cut and pasted the 190 dead center on the target. I used this as a reference because I had no idea how far each ring of the target is spaced. (IIRC my assumption was +20 ft per ring).
I know a d9s wingspan is 34 ft. 5.5 in. and assumed the ah d9 was modeled to the correct dimensions.
The dispersion from the tail turret was within the wing span of the 190D9 at 600.
45ft > 34.5
Now I am open to the suggestion that my tests were flawed and if I have time I will reinstall Ah and try again. I will not attempt the top turret because I doubt I could get lined up right for a proper test. Unless there is some setting to allow bomber guns to fire from the ground that I do not know about. You obviously have an easier way to test it so I will take what ever find as fact to save myself the trouble or re-testing.
Unfortunately my tests were done years ago before the big week scenario and I no longer have film or a screenshot. If you say all is well and I am wrong then fine by me, I stand corrected.
-
Originally posted by TBolt A-10
First, isn't it "feet" instead of yards?
Second, where is the merge set at, Pyro? I can't tell.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. 600 yards was the test conditions in the test that Wotan posted.
The convergence from different gun turrets is 600 yards, but I'm not talking about that. This was just a test of an individual turret.
BTW, do me a favor and clean up your avatar. Thanks.
-
Wotan, each ring is 10 feet so the innermost ring has a diameter of 20 feet. I recognize your scan from the Gunners book, but don't have time to check it out right now. Does that tail gun figure represent the Cheyenne turret or the earlier one?
-
Originally posted by Pyro
BTW, do me a favor and clean up your avatar. Thanks.
What's wrong with my avatard? The girls aren't nude. And, the PH*CK word is intentionally misspelled.
:confused: :confused:
nevermind...fixed.
-
Originally posted by TBolt A-10
What's wrong with my avatard? The girls aren't nude. And, the PH*CK word is intentionally misspelled.
:confused: :confused:
nevermind...fixed.
hehe the coke bottle up someones butt xray is so much better lol
-
Originally posted by Horn
hehe the coke bottle up someones butt xray is so much better lol
I always thought the bottle was....ummm...in another...ummmm...hole. ;) :lol
-
Originally posted by Pyro
Wotan, each ring is 10 feet so the innermost ring has a diameter of 20 feet. I recognize your scan from the Gunners book, but don't have time to check it out right now. Does that tail gun figure represent the Cheyenne turret or the earlier one?
Yup these are from:
(http://www.internetmodeler.com/2002/march/new-releases/book_gunner.jpg)
GUNNER: An Illustrated History of World War II Aircraft Turrets and Gun Positions
By Donald Nijboer
The Boston Mills Press
ISBN 1-55046-332-2
I have most of my books boxed up. I live in Florida and had to prepare for those hurricanes. I will dig it out this weekend and post an answer early next week. I assume you will be busy having fun at the con over the weekend.