Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Citabria on November 02, 2001, 01:31:00 AM
-
as is evidenced by warbirds the b24 liberator is a very strong contender for the futue AH bomber that will see the most use in the hard knock Aces High Main Arena.
I think it is great that we have a bomber from each country but what the statistics reveal is that US/brit bombers are used most due to their defensive guns,payload and durability.
buff drivers use b26,b17 and lanc mostly. when they feel like glutton for punishment or are using the buff in a specialized role they take the lesser buffs.
looking at how difficult it is in the MA for bombers to complete their missions gives reason to believe that the B-24 would find good usage in the main arena and scenarios.
I am curious about HTC's interest in the B24.
if i remember correctly they have all the data from their research making the WB b24. perhaps this would speed its addition?
anyways,
conclusion:
B24 liberator will be a bomber that gets used in Aces High in amounts similar to the b17,b26 and lancaster.
and the B-24 is my all time favorite bomber :p
-
the b24 is to the b17 what the p47 is to the p51 :)
-
Not exactly. The B24 is very easy to shoot down, compared to the B17.
-
how bout compared to the ju88 or g4m?
-
Heh...every time I would see a G4M2 in WB, I would start to drool. Almost as easy to kill as the Ju-52. :)
-
Please no more gunships in AH. With the B17 ackstar we have enough for now.
Bring some german latewar bomber if you are so worried for it being little protected. A Ju188 would be just OK with me, but a He177 would be a dream
-
(http://personal.jax.bellsouth.net/jax/t/y/tyr88/b24.jpg)
looks good till the sturmbocks get there .........
-
:cool: Wotan
-
He177 please.
-
Good damn it... More Yank Buffs. No give me the He-177 or Ju-188. (ok, ok, a B-29 would be cool, But not the B-24) No dont get me wrong the B-24 should be in the game, but first after 1 German and 1 Italian 1 russian and 1 Japanes Heavy Bomber is released.
Give us a fair planeset for all 6 countries. (Japan,Italy,Germany,Russia,UK,Us)
-
While I would like to see a B24 eventually, I think it would be a poor choice in the near term.
I think Pyro once told me that to do a bomber, it takes as much art resources (ie time to develope) to build a bomber with 4 pilot/gun positions as it does to do 4 fighters. Thats why we have so few bombers.
Right now we need a Japanese bomber (no not the Betty), a Russian bomber, and for those masochists out there, maybe even an Italian bomber ;)
The B24 just doesnt' do anything significantly different that the B17 doesn't already do. The same for the B25, its functionally the same as the B26.
Oh, and anyone who thinks that the Ki67 is going to be an easy kill like the G4M Betty, is in for one wicked suprise. :D Depending on which model Pyro does, it has a mix of 20mm cannons and 12.7mm MG's as defensive guns, and its much faster than any true Buff (ie no mossie) we have in the arena.
-
Vermillion, well said :)
NO MORE US stuff fore a while plz :)
-
Uh...this isn't "Fighter Ace"
Although with the sentiment I see in these message-board, I think a FA-style arena might work well here. That's not a bad thing, it might be interesting to try sometime.
There's utterly no need for a Russian heavy bomber, or a Japanese heavy bomber, or an Italian heavy bomber, or even a German heavy bomber (unless you create a FA arena). They simply didn't exist in signifigant enough numbers to matter. Adding such planes would be like adding the TA-152 or F4U-1C--cute for the MA, but next to useless for scenarios, and really a waste of effort.
The B-24 IS the logical next 4-engine plane. That said, that only proves we have enough heavy bombers in AH for now--except maybe for early-war versions (like a B-17E).
There are two major holes in AH's planeset (as far as scenarios are concerned). There's a shortage of single and twin-engine attack aircraft (SBD's and BF-110's and Kates and TU-2's and such), and there's a shortage of early to mid-war Pacific aircraft (F4F's and P-40's and Oscars and such).
J_A_B
-
J_A_B...There were about 1,100 He177s built. I don't consider that an insignificant number.
-
I would love to see the B24 in the game - and it should be - more of them were produced than any other 4 engine bomber.
I'm more interested in shooting bombers down than in flying them, so give me more US iron to blow to bits! :)
-
The only new big US bomber that I am interested in seeing in AH is the B-29A. That would be a great thing to spend bomber perk points on.
An early B-17 would be a good thing as well.
The bombers that I am interested in seeing:
B-29A Superfortress
B6N2 Tenzan "Jill"
B7A2 Ryusei "Grace"
H8K2 "Emily"
He177A-5 Greif
Ju188A-1
Ki-67
Mosquito B.XVI
SBD Dauntless
S.M.79-II
Tu-2S
-
J_A_B have you read abt the shortage of German Heavy Bombers, or are u just making it upp! HELLO.... Germany had a large bomber force. Hitler dident even like figthers, he was a bomber maniac. (like turning the 262 into a bomber... Yuukkk Idiot) He-177-Greif and Ju-188 both exceded 1000 versn built.
He-177= 1094 Built
Ju-188= 1036 Built
Do-217= 1750 Built
Arado Ar 234 Blitz 274 built, no there is a perk plane.
And here is the spec on the russian Tu-2 (2527 Built) this could be a nice ruski bomber.
Type: Tu-2S
Function: bomber
Year: 1943 Crew: 4 Engines: 2 * 1850hp Shvetsov ASh-82FN
Wing Span: 18.86m Length: 13.80m Height: 4.55m Wing Area: 48.80m2
Empty Weight: 7474kg Max.Weight: 11360kg
Speed: 550km/h Ceiling: 10970m Range: 2500km
Armament: 2*g20mm 3*mg12.7mm b1500kg
-
B-24 is great addition, Cit!
I wanna play Pacific War!
Mitsu
:p
-
We want b24.
I've been saying this in the arena for two months now :-)
But more importantly right now we need ju52 as armed troop transport
[ 11-02-2001: Message edited by: jpeg ]
-
jpeg,
A Russian or Japanese C-47 would be much better than a Ju52 if you want an armed transport (I'm not even going to talk about an H8K4).
The Ju52 is more than 50mph slower than the C-47.
Personally I would never sacrifice 50mph for a single 7.92mm machinegun and if I were attacking a single 7.92mm machine gun isn't going to make a difference.
The Russian and Japanese versions of the C-47 are better armed than the Ju52 and slightly faster than the C-47.
-
"He-177= 1094 Built"
"Ju-188= 1036 Built"
"Do-217= 1750 Built"
Versus what, around 20,000 B-24's??
Which do you think had a larger impact on the war?
That said, there is possibly a use for some of these aircraft in AH. From what I know about the He-177, it was mostly used on the Eastern Front, and some of them carried a large cannon like a lot of B-25's did. That might be nice to have and would be unique to AH. Perhaps a future perk bomber?
Ju-188? Little more than a faster Ju-88, and would see little use in either the arena OR in scenarios.
From what I know of the Do-217, it would be somewhere between the JU-88 and He-177 in ability. Once again--not a bad plane, but not among those that is glaringly missing from the plane set.
My own suggestion is fill in the largest holes in the plane set first, then come back for the lesser-produced models.
J_A_B
-
Largest holes? What hole is there that a B-24 fills? There is already a US heavy bomber. There is no hole. I'm not sure what your argument is, but I'm not buying it. You need to put those numbers you're slinging around into context before they mean anything. He177s and Ju188s might not have been produced in the numbers that US aircraft were, but that doesn't make them any less significant. They still made up a large percentage of the total Luftwaffe bomber force. There's nothing that the B-24 can do that the B-17 doesn't already do.
-
B24 wouldnt last very long if a 262 started on it. what AH needs is somthing bigger like a B29(Enola Gay plane) superfortress now that is a bomber id like to c that in the next update and nukes to that would go well. also we should have the bouncing bomb in the lancaster :D null
-
Also we need some Stuka Dive bombers to do some cowardly vulching on poor people on runway but u need some dams to bounce bouncing bombs off :confused:
-
"as is evidenced by warbirds the b24 liberator"
The popularity of the B24 in Warbirds probably had more to do with it's silly climbrate than anything else!.
(Although there was already a B24 squad, subbing with B17s before the B24 arrived in WB).
Daff
-
B29 would be good plane to have. B29A model had remote controll turrets (gee..I wonder what it would be like to have remote control turret) B29b only had a tail gun.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B:
Ju-188? Little more than a faster Ju-88, and would see little use in either the arena OR in scenarios.
Have you actually looked at the stats on the Ju188A-1?
Little more than a faster Ju88? :confused: Would see little use? :confused:
The Ju188 would replace the B-26B as the primary strike bomber and would give the B-17 a good run for it as the bomber to take to contested airspace. The Ju188 ain't armed with popguns. It has a 20mm cannon in a dorsal turret, a 20mm in the nose, a 13mm machine gun in the rear dorsal position and one in the ventral gondola's rear. It can carry 3,000kg (6,614lbs) of bombs internally and make 325mph. The Ju188 was better than the Do217, B-25, B-26, Wellington, S.M.79, Ki67, P1Y1 and Tu-2S.
Production numbers shouldn't be used as a criteria anymore than amount of "combat" that an aircraft saw should be used.
The fact is that while we produced 18,000 B-24s and they did extemely good service for the Allies, the USAAF in particular, it won't bring much new to the table in AH.
It is more important, IMHO, to fill hole in the AH gameplay than to fill in holes that are defined as holes because of the total number of airframes of a given aircraft produced that were produced historically.
If production numbers were all that were to be used we'd have a pretty borring planeset.
-
you guys are missing the point.
its about numbers of buffs in the main arena. HTC has made Aces High a main arena sim and left scenarios and HA's to wither on the vine.
the b24 will be a buff that can survive in the main arena. its that simple. and because of this people will fly it.
to people who say it is the same as the b17?
you are the same people who would say the p47 is the same as the p51 and thus not a worthy addition.
(http://www.migman.com/ref/ac/b24/pics/b24_factory_580.jpg)
[ 11-03-2001: Message edited by: Citabria ]
-
I'd love to see the B24. It was THE bomber in the Pacific, and in the Med as well. As far as the Germans getting a buff.. nah, not interested to be honest. It would be adding a plane that really has no historical significance, just so it can get into the MA to replace something that does. We already have enough historically insignificant fighters that are quite prominent, why add a bomber that is as well.
You want multi-engine German planes? Give us bomber DESTROYERS. Ju-88C was a bomber destroyer, He-219, Me 410- etc.
The only historically significant 'bomber' the Germans had was the Stuka, and we only need that for Scenarios.
-
urchin said it.
the b24 was the us pacific heavy bomber. b17s were removed from the pacific early on.
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
jpeg,
A Russian or Japanese C-47 would be much better than a Ju52 if you want an armed transport (I'm not even going to talk about an H8K4).
The Ju52 is more than 50mph slower than the C-47.
Personally I would never sacrifice 50mph for a single 7.92mm machinegun and if I were attacking a single 7.92mm machine gun isn't going to make a difference.
The Russian and Japanese versions of the C-47 are better armed than the Ju52 and slightly faster than the C-47.
OK cool, then i'd rather have one of those.
Anything is better then c47.
But make some suggestions, not just "russian versions".. hell i'd like to know the names too since i'm not up on my names of russian aircrafts
-
jpeg - an example would be the Li-2.
(http://www.douglasdc3.com/li2/li2.jpg)
"Russia imported 21 pre-war DC-3's and 2 unassembled air frames. Initially, Russia designated their home-built DC-3's, PS84 (Passazhirskii Samolet - Plant 84, near Moscow). On September 17th, 1942, Russia re-named them Li-2's after Boris P. Lisunov, the aeronautical engineer who supervised production in Santa Monica Plant, CA, for 2 years. The PS84 used the 900hp Shvetsov M-62 engine (developed from the licensed Wright SGR-1820F which powered the DC-2). The engine configuration gave the nacelles a narrower chord. Even after they upgraded the engines to 1200hp ASH-62, the nacelle shape remained close to the first models."
-
Personally I'm not interested in seeing the He-177 at all. I much rather see the bomber destroyers, as Urchin points out.
And the Stuka (D and G versions), of course. :)
-
jpeg,
Here is the other:
Douglas L2D4 "Tabby"
(http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijna/l2dpic.gif)
Engines: Two Mitsubishi Kinsei 51 fourteen-cylinder air-cooled radials, rated at 1,300 hp for take-off and 1,200 hp at 3,000 m, driving three-blade metal propellers
Speed: 212 kt at 2,800 m
Armament: One flexible 13 mm Type 2 machine-gun and two 7.7 mm Type 92 machine-guns
Accommodation: Crew of three to five, and either 21 passengers (L2D1 to L2D5) or 4,500 kg of freight (L2D2-1 to L2D4-1)
-
The B24 had bad handling, was difficult to fly in formation, set on fire much easier and was all around easier to kill than a B17. Although it outdid the B17 in nearly every performace category it was never trusted as the B17 was. Plus its often said to be very ugly, though I think it looks fine.
-
the b24 had self sealing fuel tanks just like the b17.
the reason b24s had higher losses was not because they were more fragile, but because they flew at lower altitudes than the b17.
the b24 carried more bombs faster and further with comparable defensive armament to the b17
[ 11-03-2001: Message edited by: Citabria ]
-
Hi Citabria,
>the reason b24s had higher losses was not because they were more fragile, but because they flew at lower altitudes than the b17.
The Luftwaffe pilots took it for granted that the B-24 withstood much less damage than the B-17. Here's one example from Reschke's "JG301/302":
"It was confirmed once more: A B-24 attacked with all the guns fell out of the sky quicker than a B-17 - one attack sufficed, and the Liberator impacted on the ground close to Lake Starnberg."
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
"Largest holes? What hole is there that a B-24 fills? "
You're absolutely right Raub--there ISN'T any huge hole that the B-24 fills.
I even said that in an earlier post.
I feel ther biggest holes in AH are the lack of single and twin-engine attack aircraft, and early to mid-war Pacific planes. Early-war Euro planes, particularily Eastern-Front, are alsao lacking, but not as badly.
Once these holes are taken care of, THEN it's time to come back to planes like the B-24, He-177, ETC.
J_A_B
-
sustainable damage levels for buffs are tweaked for gameplay guys. this area shouldnt be a primary factor in how worthy of a buff it is in the MA.
example: ju88. its a tuffened plane because it has no defenses
b17: 1 well placed 30mm will set b17 on fire every time (most of my b17 kills i set them on fire in one pass with a small amount of 30mm or 20mm)
lancaster/ju88: a small amount of 30/20/12.7mm into the cockpit will pilot kill them.
-
Originally posted by ShaunMcL:
B24 wouldnt last very long if a 262 started on it. what AH needs is somthing bigger like a B29(Enola Gay plane) superfortress now that is a bomber id like to c that in the next update and nukes to that would go well. also we should have the bouncing bomb in the lancaster
Also we need some Stuka Dive bombers to do some cowardly vulching on poor people on runway but u need some dams to bounce bouncing bombs off :D
steal my idea of bouncing bombs and dams,why don't ya?? :rolleyes: :p
-
Bah, who cares about a B-24?
I'd much rather have a PB4Y. :D
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
b24 was the US pacific bomber. all b17s were withdrawn from pacific duty very early on.
-
PB4Y = B-24 in the Pacific
I had lunch a couple of months back with a PB4Y pilot and a 101st BG B-17 pilot. It seems there's quite a rivalry between the two of them over which plane was better overall. Watching them go at it was worth being there alone.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
PB4Y...
Saw three of them in Wyoming this summer. Pretty birds. Would love to see them in AH. A B-17F would be nice too. Someday....
<S>IC
-
pb4y1 would be great
it would be a great mod from a b24 :)
bigweek needs another american 4 engine heavy.
;)
-
Yes bring the B-24D or J
But I would rather see any of these Heavy twins be introduced first!
BF110 two models
ME410
Hs129 with 75mm cannon
He219
P61
Invader
I think we will see them all eventually but lets slow down the Bomber Production first.