Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: sgtdeaux on October 07, 2005, 04:52:17 AM
-
People's current complaint about bombers is the dive bombing that occurs by people who exploit the games inability to control people who are unwilling to play the game with historical accuracy.
If a B-29 is added and perked say 100 perks for a formation.. this would encourage people to use the high altitude of the B-29 for strategic bombing.
The german interception planes designed for this role would then play a bigger role in the game.
With the current system of respawn times.. there is little if no reason for someone to climb to 25k in a formation of bombers only to have to fight off the same guy 10 times on your way to the target.. eventually the eternal upper interceptor wins.
The UBER bomber effect that the fighter plebians in this game fear is hardly an issue here. with the number of people scrambling interceptors to the number of people who actually use heavy bomber formations the effect of the B-29 on the overall game will only add balance not chaos.
One point I really want to make here is NO NUKES. In this game weapons systems and airplanes not in heavy useage during the war are not in the game... history shows that only two nuclear devices where ever fielded therefore this is not a "mass use weapon." And to you nay sayer fighter pukes.. remember you got all you wanted for xmas.. 262, 163, every oddball vauge version of the 109 and unperked LA7 noob machines.
its about time for the bomber jocks to get some toys too :)
-
We got another B-29 requester!
Dang I should've placed a bet on 20 B-29 askers this week instead of 15...
-
squeeky wheels get grease.
-
Yes for B-29
Nay for requesters
-
Okay... so you can already flatten an entire town in 1 pass with the semi-uber B24... You can drop every FH on a field with one formation. You can carry more pounts than a B17 and do it faster higher and for longer range....
And you want a plane that can carry 17,000lbs up to 30k and have it allow formations???
And you say it will "add" balance?!?!?
Not sure what you're smoking, but might want to ask your doctor about it.
P.S. I'm no "fighter jock" -- I do my share of fightes and bombers both, but I think you don't ever fly fighters. To be "intercepted by the same reupping interceptor"? HAH.. You get 1 chance. After that the plane is too high and too fast to intercept. You can't even climb to alt before he's halfway across the sector. Forget about trying to get him before he drops his bombload. You're making fiction up here, it never happens that way.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Okay... so you can already flatten an entire town in 1 pass with the semi-uber B24... You can drop every FH on a field with one formation. You can carry more pounts than a B17 and do it faster higher and for longer range....
And you want a plane that can carry 17,000lbs up to 30k and have it allow formations???
And you say it will "add" balance?!?!?
Not sure what you're smoking, but might want to ask your doctor about it.
P.S. I'm no "fighter jock" -- I do my share of fightes and bombers both, but I think you don't ever fly fighters. To be "intercepted by the same reupping interceptor"? HAH.. You get 1 chance. After that the plane is too high and too fast to intercept. You can't even climb to alt before he's halfway across the sector. Forget about trying to get him before he drops his bombload. You're making fiction up here, it never happens that way.
no, hes completely right that bombers are far too easy to kill. the b24's may have super uber guns, but if you know how, theyre dead the moment you get the icon :D
the reason for this is that in ah, noone flys missions or escort. a single set of bombers are toast. b29's should be introduced, but they will be very hard to do, with the remote guns and all, and its not something HTC need right now, with ToD coming up. maybe some time in the future, but not now.
krusty, even a set of b29's are easy prey.
-
I want strategic targets first, then new bombers.
-
zOMFG!one!1!#@#!@! NOoOK.....
Sorry guys, I just can't do. I'm just not feeling it, maybe later:D
-
poor baby (gives Dud a sixpack) come back after you finish that and you'll be about the right IQ level to carry on. :lol
-
Originally posted by sgtdeaux
People's current complaint about bombers is the dive bombing that occurs by people who exploit the games inability to control people who are unwilling to play the game with historical accuracy.
If a B-29 is added and perked say 100 perks for a formation.. this would encourage people to use the high altitude of the B-29 for strategic bombing.
The german interception planes designed for this role would then play a bigger role in the game.
With the current system of respawn times.. there is little if no reason for someone to climb to 25k in a formation of bombers only to have to fight off the same guy 10 times on your way to the target.. eventually the eternal upper interceptor wins.
The UBER bomber effect that the fighter plebians in this game fear is hardly an issue here. with the number of people scrambling interceptors to the number of people who actually use heavy bomber formations the effect of the B-29 on the overall game will only add balance not chaos.
One point I really want to make here is NO NUKES. In this game weapons systems and airplanes not in heavy useage during the war are not in the game... history shows that only two nuclear devices where ever fielded therefore this is not a "mass use weapon." And to you nay sayer fighter pukes.. remember you got all you wanted for xmas.. 262, 163, every oddball vauge version of the 109 and unperked LA7 noob machines.
its about time for the bomber jocks to get some toys too :)
Congrates sgtdeaux, you are the 45,987,769,096,950,001 person to request the B-29. Your prize is...................
Not getting the B-29! Congrates!!!
-
Bah we're geting the b29 (slips htc 20$)
Arrg not nuff..:p
-
every oddball vauge version of the 109
Exactly what 109 versions would be "oddball vauge".
E4, F4, G2, G6, G14 and K4. Although there are quite a few of them in the game (with the new release specially) non of them are oddball.
As for B29, the only planes capable of intercepting them would be 163's. Which means only B29's close to HQ would be intercepted.
If you have ever tried fighting bombers in AH at 30k+ you will know that the bombers usually and completely pwn the fighters up there thanks to their ability to turn and change direction without losing much altitude. A fighter doesn't stand a chance to get a good pass on a bomber since the bomber will only turn its tail to the fighter and then kill it.
262, Ta152, P47N, doesn't matter.
-
O hell, put the nuke in but, if its dropped on target, it kills everything and everyone around for a 15mi. radius including friendly. hehehehehe
-
my view on the b29 is this...
the b29 played a major part in the pacific war..prob more so than any other aircraft..the japanese were developing planes to combat this threat.
basically the upshot is we cannot have TOD with out it..
i for one would welcome it into AH.. but with limitations. like for instance along the lines of the me163 only be available from certain bases far away from the front, country must have 30% of there start up bases , perk them..no formation option. and only conventional weapons
-
Originally posted by SELECTOR
my view on the b29 is this...
the b29 played a major part in the pacific war..prob more so than any other aircraft..the japanese were developing planes to combat this threat.
basically the upshot is we cannot have TOD with out it..
i for one would welcome it into AH.. but with limitations. like for instance along the lines of the me163 only be available from certain bases far away from the front, country must have 30% of there start up bases , perk them..no formation option. and only conventional weapons
Good Suggestion SELECTOR - I'd like to see the 29 as you stated and obviously perk it too.
-
I actually do want to see the B-29A added at some point. It will need to be perked heavily and of course there will be no nuke. I don't agree with SELECTOR that it should be limited to rear bases or that it should lack the formation option. The nearly 80lbs/sq.ft of wing loading will limit it to certain bases as it is. To compare, a fully laden Lancaster is just over 60lbs/sq.ft of wing loading as I recall.
-
alrifght guys, icve had a few(amany) drinks. I'm ready now...
zOMDFGER@@R N00okieoes@$@$@R BVig MUTHA bb000mm@!$$R@R YEAHDADFWQD!E..
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/6/71_1092865843_b29.jpg)
YEDHAADSCF big nboommedery@!#$$@@$ QUAH!@##!#!
-
It'd certainly be good to have another perked bomber, rather than just the Arado, even if the B29 didn't see action in Europe. Not that that matters, but, hell I'm European, so I'm biased as hell. However, ME163s against B29s, seems to strip away yey another layer of historical accuracy. Not that that seems to matter. And why should it? I guess. Mumble...
-
100 points for formation or per plane?
-
i would like to see the b29, i think it should cost more than the arado, because the arado is just sort of pointless. the b29 i think should cost about 75 perkies per plane. so in the end it would cost about the same as the me-262
-
ok before you post more crap about b29s READ THE 49872938769965736978593947979 47094790469009757101234567889 09876543 other posts about trying to get them:rolleyes::furious :rolleyes: :furious :rolleyes: :furious :rolleyes: :furious
-
difference in this post and the billion other posts about B29 is he put in a feasible reason to have it. All bombers (a20 and Il2 are exceptions) are easy targets below 10k, even a B17 or B24. Hell, B24 catches on fire with 1 pass. When the time comes for the B29, it should be available at all fields, I say this because what moron in his right mind is going to up a perked bomber on the frontlines and have to climb with enemy fighters around. Only a few would be interested in the hour+ flight required for a B29, not to mention the amount that will die bacause they hit a tree on takeoff. B17s and B24s would still be the most heavily used bombers
There were Japanese plans to use 163s, so the 163 vs B29 could fall under the "what if" scenarios.
Right now, be wishing for an earlier B17 and B24 instead of later B29.
-
OK here's the deal, give each country one B29 with a nuke and only the person with the best rank from each country can pilot it. That way we would have assured mutual destruction, who knows maybe we can end this unholy war.
P.S. Just so the Knights win :aok
-
i dont really like the nuke idea its just too powerful, it would have to cost lots of perkies from everyone on the team, because of the massive damage, and hiteck would have to add a "fallout" effect, where if you fly too long in a recently nuked zone you start to black out and die. the nuke if it was the same size explosion would flatten only 1 grid square anyways, thuse the only reall usage would be as an hq buster (or to level the furball areas, just to see eveyones reactions), but hte "fallout" would really spread over an area of at least 9 grid squares, and that woudl be annoying, having to fly around a 9 square area just because some score potato used his nuke. this nuke, not the b29 idea would fall into the category of stopping people from flying in a flying game.
:furious :furious :furious :furious :furious :furious :furious :furious :furious
-
See, you start off with "no No0Kz", but you've obviously considered it, or you wouldn't have posted that whacky rationale.
NO NO0KS 4 j00!!!!111!!!1
-
Duck and Cover :p
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
See, you start off with "no No0Kz", but you've obviously considered it, or you wouldn't have posted that whacky rationale.
to deny something you must consider it. to blindly deny something is a mistake.
-
Please add a B 29 arena where all the b 29 dudes can fly around with their b 29s.
Since in that arena only plane would be b 29 you could pretend the b 24 is a b 29, just relable the bomb load.
-
lmao thats a good one, Rename the bomb load lol. One thing tho! THE DAMN 24 DONT LOOK NOTHING LIKE THE 29 LOL! but that was a good one =] shoot ya later.
P.S i need to visit the forums more hehe
-
Originally posted by KD303
It'd certainly be good to have another perked bomber, rather than just the Arado, even if the B29 didn't see action in Europe. Not that that matters, but, hell I'm European, so I'm biased as hell. However, ME163s against B29s, seems to strip away yey another layer of historical accuracy. Not that that seems to matter. And why should it? I guess. Mumble...
Like P51s dogfighting with Spitfires or a Jug having it out with a LA7 is historically accurate?
-
Make the B29 only available from zone bases. This would give us another reason to play stategically since taking a zone base would not only take away the ability to resupply but also to up the uber-bomber....
Well, at least make it so you can only up it from a large base.
-
nukes no. B-29 yes. The cockpit view must be awesome.
hap
-
U cant have a B29 with no nookie! What's the point?
-
Originally posted by Hap
nukes no. B-29 yes. The cockpit view must be awesome.
hap
I'd have to agree
(http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b29-1.jpg)
-
True to that =] nothing like a B-29 it would be one of the better bombers on Aces High for High Level Bombers =] would save me from low level lancs hehe
-
Originally posted by outbreak
True to that =] nothing like a B-29 it would be one of the better bombers on Aces High for High Level Bombers =] would save me from low level lancs hehe
I don't believe that for a second outbreak. You'd just replace your lancstukas with B29s.
-
nah i wouldnt :) i just use lancs for low level because ima good carpet bomber with em :aok now give me a 29 i drop form 25k and just keep on chuggin :lol
-
Well, considering we don't have a periscope on the Ar234, it might be difficult for HTC to come up with a way to work the guns on the B29. I think that's the major reason why they haven't even tried it. I'm not too broken up, mind you.
But the thing with normal guns is that the gun is right in front of you. It shoots out to where you aim. Only, in the B29 that's not so. You have 3/4 remote gun turrets, and if you're, say, in the port waist position, somebody in charge toggles the guns to work with your station, and you aim them. But in AH that means there are convergence issues. The guns are many feet away in both directions (front/back) so how do you code it so that the bullets actually hit their targets? Answer: It's hard.
Also, if all bomber guns are set to convergence of 500 yards, in a b29 you'd never hit anything outside or inside that range. Even using one single gun (which B29s can't) there are still convergence issues.
So you see it's not an easy thing to put in.
-
Arent all bomber turrets "remote controlled" allready? Including drones. I dont see it as a problem.
-
You miss my point.... Think of a triangle with a flat bottom and 2 sides that meet in the middle. If you're off even the slightest from 90 degrees, then the distance at the "point" of the triangle shifts. If you're just in or just out of 500d range, your guns will miss by miles. Okay I've made a slightly exaggerated image to illustrate my point. The guns would be ineffective 99% of the time if modeled as AH currently has them.
The black lines are the B29 fuselage. The black circles are the gun turrets (fore and aft). The blue circle is the viewport the gunner is using to aim the guns. The red dot is the enemy. Blue arrow is the direction gunner is aiming. Orange lines are bullet streams.
(http://www2.propichosting.com/Images/450004521/11.jpg)
So you see, there are issues to work out before the b29 can ever be added.
-
Excellent diagram, krusty
A question: how would things change if the remote control feature were simply ignored, for gameplay reasons? Wouldnt things work right if the "sight" pretended to be a "gun's view" instead of the historical "gunner's view" at his remote station?
-
Originally posted by Krusty
You miss my point.... Think of a triangle with a flat bottom and 2 sides that meet in the middle. If you're off even the slightest from 90 degrees, then the distance at the "point" of the triangle shifts. If you're just in or just out of 500d range, your guns will miss by miles. Okay I've made a slightly exaggerated image to illustrate my point. The guns would be ineffective 99% of the time if modeled as AH currently has them.
The black lines are the B29 fuselage. The black circles are the gun turrets (fore and aft). The blue circle is the viewport the gunner is using to aim the guns. The red dot is the enemy. Blue arrow is the direction gunner is aiming. Orange lines are bullet streams.
(http://www2.propichosting.com/Images/450004521/11.jpg)
So you see, there are issues to work out before the b29 can ever be added.
And that is how it works allready. Except blue dot is "real" gun in AH. If your gun is damaged, lets say example in B24, things work just like in a picture. Aiming is more difficult but not impossible. And we all know how effective those bomber guns are...
Still I dont see any problems. And I dont want B29 to AH, there are many other planes Id like to see before it.
-
Sim, mik, as we have it now, the gun is actually placed on the view. So even if the res of your guns miss you still have YOUR gun, which will hit almost every time (if you compensate for distance/rounds dropping). In the B29 you would never even get "just your gun" to hit the target.
So, yes, we have this type of convergence now, but in a B29 it would be even worse, as you don't even have the gun you are stationed at -- that's not how the B29s work.
Sim: the b29 turrets are all remote controlled. They are small and have no windows. The windows are spaced through the bomber. So there's no way to just stick a gun at the window (there weren't any) and there's no way to just stick a gunner in the turret (not possible) so you run into the same problem -- how do you do it?
-
Krusty,
Iguess i was suggesting that for the purposes of jsut making it work, it might be reasonable to PRETEND the 29 turrets worked like the standard AH2 turrets. In other words, give the game non=historic gunner postions with views that would only have existed if the b29s guns had gunners at the turret positions.
Its historically garbage, but it would work....as well as the current setup, anyway.
Alternatively, could this be an option?
The historic gun and view positions in place.
Imagine that the half circle view from the gunners position has an overlaid compass, with 180 degrees' divisions.
Each gun would be programmed to lay fire so that when the VIEWER looks at a given direction, the gun will intersect THAT VIEW at a range of 500 meters.
So, a gun directly over the viewer's position will have the identical angle as the view; but one forward of him will have a proportionate adjustment to the rear so the fire strikes the imaginary 500 meter circle around the plane at just the spot the gunner is aiming at. Make the same adjustments for every gun, add the vertical circle for the second axis, and ??Oila??
-
Then you run into problems when you're a few yards inside or outside 500yards. Even though you have the perfect shot, the perfectly stationary target, and at 500 yards you would saw the enemy's wing off, say the target is at 600 yards, and the bullets all zip across the target's bow.
The problem is that you only will ever hit at 500, and we all know how likely that is :P
EDIT: I'm surprised it worked in WW2, considering how it works... I wonder how THEY overcame this problem.
-
Historically the B-29 relied on altitude and speed to avoid interception.
However this would not work in this game due to the "endless upper factor" Eventually two or three formations of B-29's even at 30k would get taken down by packs of G-10's or 163's.
The gun turret issue is really a no brainer. Make the gun veiws available just as in a normal bomber but remove the graphic for the glass, structure and just have a free floating aiming sight.. giving the impression of looking thru a screen or camera. its actually less graphics work as opposed to more.
-
Originally posted by sgtdeaux
Historically the B-29 relied on altitude and speed to avoid interception.
Don't know much about the incendiary campaign, do you? The high alt stuff was a washout vs. Japan, and LeMay ditched it in favor of mass lower alt firebombing raids designed to set the paper-n-wood cities aflame.
Those lower alt raid survived because: 1) they were mass raids, not 3 bombers against all Japan's air assets; and 2) they were escorted by large numbers of fighters, mostly P-51s. Those historical lessons may have some application in AH2, and you may want to give the issue some thought.
However this would not work in this game due to the "endless upper factor" .....
Having trouble in your original thread, so trying to metastasize this previously unnoticed "problem"?
Question: This game has been around for, what, 5 years? If this "endless upper" bee up your butt is such a critical, game destroying issue why are YOU the only person :cry 'ing about it??
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Then you run into problems when you're a few yards inside or outside 500yards. Even though you have the perfect shot, the perfectly stationary target, and at 500 yards you would saw the enemy's wing off, say the target is at 600 yards, and the bullets all zip across the target's bow.
The problem is that you only will ever hit at 500, and we all know how likely that is :P
EDIT: I'm surprised it worked in WW2, considering how it works... I wonder how THEY overcame this problem.
So reviewing the options, it seems there are 2 choices:
1) Use the historical design, and ask the gunner to adjust his lead to account for gun displacement from his view position. (Query: is this what the gunners had to do in 1945? Does any have access to a B29 gunnery manual? What a boon that would be!)
2) Sacrifice accuracy for playability, and give each B29 position a "gunner" with his own "sight".
Either would work, so I dont think the problem is insoluble. The B29 is Uber enough that it seems reasonable to ask us to make the gunnery adjustments needed; but, the simplified bombsight decision implies that (at least in buffs) playability sometimes outranks accurracy in HTC's decisions.
Honestly, since bombers provide an outlet for early players working through the intimidating learning curve -- I have to agree with emphasizing playability. I know that in my early months in AH1, the buff raids let me play when everything else might have felt terminally discouraging.
Whether the same principle should apply in perk buffs is a worthy question, though.
-
sgtdeaux:
Why not just suggest to HTC that bombers be invincible (or nigh invincible, at least). Based on this thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=163280) that you previously posted, that's what you're after. You want to take a single set of bombers, fly through the stratosphere to target, bomb the crap out of it and make it home without a scratch.
Or why not make a deal with everyone in the game just to not shoot down bombers anymore?
Seriously, what is the problem? You are going on and on about how vunerable the bombers are and you think adding a different type of bomber will make a difference? Just to clue you in: if the B-29 ever does enter the game, and you take it out all alone and/or unescorted in small groups, you will still get shot down by the "endless uppers". For that matter, you'll get shot down by just one guy that knows what he is doing. If you can't handle losing your bombers to fighters now, how are you going to deal with it when your supposed super bomber get's shot down (repeatedly).
In WW2, in the bombing raids by B-29s, there were still losses of these bombers. The reason they were so few was not so much because the B-29 was so superior, but because by that time in the air war, Japan was rapidly running out of quality pilots. These bombers still flew in groups and still had escorts. The only time this stopped being the case was once air superiority was complete (by fighters, not bombers) and only in the case of the weather/photo/recon bombers and the modified A-Bomb droppers.
This is not intended as a flame, but to continue to try and help you see that it is your tactics that are the problem, not the ride you are taking. If what you are doing is not working, stop doing it and try something else. Either that or just keep telling yourself everyone else is wrong and you are right.
-
As a side note, the B29 high alt campaign was killed by the winds over Japan... For some freak reason they get up to 250mph at 20k (really screws with bomb aiming). I think I heard this wasn't normal everywhere, just that right over Japan there's a jetstream or something.
-
they might have to start thinkin about adding a B-29 with nuke ord when T.O.D. japan comes around but we still got a while till then:aok
-
I'm amazed at the people in this game who think they are teaching me anything new at all.
All of the tactics you profess that I learn to do ive been doing for quite some time.
you find it amusing to flame everytime I mention the "endless upper factor" because I think it offends you somehow.
Perhaps if you spend more time reflecting on the ideas and how they would affect the overall tactical situation of the game as opposed to vomiting more literary abortions onto the board in response to my posts you might see that there are decent reasons for my sudgestions.
I have no interest in seeing the bombers being immortal.. I record missions and enjoy watching the challenges I face in limping a damaged bomber home. I am more interested in making the game more historically accurate as opposed to the direction its heading..
A massive furball, noob machine storm.
-
OK, if you want us to take the limit idea seriously --
how does making a fighter wait your suggested "30 seconds" have ANY impact on your problem of limping home? It just means he hits you 30 seconds later! What's the point?
AND if you require fighters to wait longer, explain how that doesnt amount to "making everyone else in the arena wait so you're mroe likely to finish your sortie"? The vast majority of the 100+ pilots flying for the country you're dropping on couldnt care less about you. You're worried about the "5-8" who keep attacking. Should the entire arena suffer because you dont like getting "endless uppers"?
Lastly, you say you've tried all the tactics we've talked about -- then why are you whining? If you fly with even one escort, you'll find that the endless uppers arent a problem at all. If you'fe willing to do that, why EVER would you require a change in game mechanics that would penalize everyone who doesnt fly buffs the way YOU do?
Deaux, you have not been flamed at all. (If you think the disagreements here are "flames", you would have run home weeping six months ago -- before the "kindler, gentler" BBS policies). You've contradicted yourself (You do solo deep penetration but "I've been using these ideas for some time??" You want to make the game more historically accurate by preventing people from taking off to attack you?) You've been taken more seriously than this idea deserves, honestly -- and its clear that you havent thought about how your proposals would affect the rest of the non-SgtDeaux arena.
originally posted by SgtDeaux
I'm amazed at the people in this game who think they are teaching me anything new at all
It also seems that either from a lack of comprehension, or from the kind of overweening pride that comes from being sure that only you can be right, the community's attempts to help you see why this is a bad idea arent getting through. If you havent gotten it by now, you probably cant get it, or you refuse to get it.
So, I'm out of this.
-
I hereby declare this topic dead. All has been said that needs to be said. We've been more than friendly, civil, and helpful, but have had none in return. I'm out as well.
-
Originally posted by sgtdeaux
Historically the B-29 relied on altitude and speed to avoid interception.
However this would not work in this game due to the "endless upper factor" Eventually two or three formations of B-29's even at 30k would get taken down by packs of G-10's or 163's.
The gun turret issue is really a no brainer. Make the gun veiws available just as in a normal bomber but remove the graphic for the glass, structure and just have a free floating aiming sight.. giving the impression of looking thru a screen or camera. its actually less graphics work as opposed to more.
Do you have any idea how hard it is for a fighter to intercept a bomber like that?
The B-29 at start is going 360mph (Lets not joke here, you'll be firewalled) at 30,000ft and the Bf109K-4 is starting at 0mph at, say, 2,500ft. It takes the Bf109K-4, say, 10 minutes and all of his WEP to climb to 35,000ft. In that time the Bf109K-4's forward speed is about 160mph, the rest of his airspeed being in the verticle. So, let's say that for 10 minutes the B-29 has a 200mph speed advantage on the Bf109K-4 which means that in the time it took the Bf109K-4 to climb to 35,000ft the B-29 put another 34 miles between it and the Bf109K-4. Now the Bf109K-4 levels out and starts to accelerate slowly as it is well above it's critical altitude and out of WEP. By the Time the Bf109K-4 reaches 360mph the B-29 is more than 37 miles ahead of the Bf109K-4. By the time the Bf109K-4 has maxed it's speed, say, 400mph, the B-29 is a mere 36 miles ahead. With a 40mph closing rate it will take the Bf109K-4 50 minutes catch the B-29 and there is no way that the Bf109K-4 will have enough fuel to do so at the rate it has been burning it.
Endless upper problem my ass.
-
Just ignore him. He didn't even read the rest of this thread, just wanted to add something about "endless uppers", or else he'd have understood what the issue was with the gun positions.
-
and weren't the b-29's stripped of most of their guns for that fire-bombing campaign? just a pair or 2 left facing rearward....
hmmm?
-
Not that I know of... The guns were in remote turrets, I don't know if they were easily removable or not.
-
I think they cut the defensive armament down when they switched to
the lower altitude night firebombing raids. Reason being is that the
japanese didn't have a very developed night fighting capability and they
could carry more ordnance.
-
Originally posted by Shane
and weren't the b-29's stripped of most of their guns for that fire-bombing campaign? just a pair or 2 left facing rearward....
hmmm?
From my understanding only the recon/weather versions and the a-bomb version were stripped of defense guns.
-
Originally posted by Blammo
From my understanding only the recon/weather versions and the a-bomb version were stripped of defense guns.
Nope:
In addition, LeMay had concluded that the effects of the jet stream, cloud cover, and high operating altitudes were to blame for the failure of the B-29 raids to do any significant damage to the Japanese war industry. The initial raids against Japan had taken place at high altitudes in order to stay above anti-aircraft fire and the effective altitude of defending fighters. LeMay suggested that high-altitude, daylight attacks be phased out and replaced by low-altitude, high-intensity incendiary raids at nighttime. The aircraft would attack individually, which meant that no assembly over the base at the start of the mission or along the way would be needed. Consequently, aircraft could go directly from the base to the target and return, maximizing the bomb load and saving substantially on fuel. He ordered that all the B-29s be stripped of their General Electric defensive gun systems, leaving only the tail gun. The weight of extra crew members, armament, and ammunition would bo into bombs, each B-29 being loaded down with six to eight tons of M69 incendiary bombs. These bombs would be dropped from altitudes of only 5 to 6 thousand feet. This strategy would enable the B-29s to escape the effects of the jet stream and would get the bombers below most of the cloud cover. In addition, the B-29s would no longer have to struggle up to 30,000 feet and this would save on fuel and on wear and tear to the engines. It was believed that Japanese night fighter forces were relatively weak, but flak losses were expected to be substantial.
More:
The first raid to use these new techniques was on the night of March 9-10 against Tokyo. Another wing--the 314th Bombardment Wing (19th, 29th, 39th, and 330th BG) commanded by Brig. Gen. Thomas S. Power--had arrived in the Marianas and was stationed at North Field on Guam. A total of 302 B-29s participated in the raid, with 279 arriving over the target. The raid was led by special pathfinder crews who marked central aiming points. It lasted for two hours. The raid was a success beyond General LeMay's wildest expectations. The individual fires caused by the bombs joined to create a general conflagration known as a firestorm. When it was over, sixteen square miles of the center of Tokyo had gone up in flames and nearly 84,000 people had been killed. Fourteen B-29s were lost. The B-29 was finally beginning to have an effect.
Source: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b29_10.html
-Smut
-
ok, bring on the b-29 w/tail gun only!!! loadout only to be firebombs, no formations...
of course ht will have to figure out how to code conflagrations in towns... i'd imagine the effect of a single b-29 firebombing a base to be neligble.
:aok