Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Koski on February 27, 2011, 12:16:54 PM

Title: B-17F
Post by: Koski on February 27, 2011, 12:16:54 PM
I fail to understand why we dont have the F version yet. A) Out of memory, by removing the chin turret we are pretty close to F so there wouldnt be extensive modeling and work to be done. B) It would be an excellent addition to midwar scenarios (1943 raids to Germany) C) Memphis Belle.

 :confused:
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: VonKost on February 27, 2011, 01:13:56 PM
Along with a B-24D.  :aok :aok :aok
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Noir on February 27, 2011, 01:49:18 PM
I understand the early B17's were way different from the one we have ingame, so +1
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Pigslilspaz on February 27, 2011, 03:04:08 PM
+∞ For more variants.
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: mthrockmor on February 27, 2011, 03:24:59 PM
Other then the chin gun what is the primary difference?

Boo
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: MachFly on February 27, 2011, 03:31:57 PM
+1
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Guppy35 on February 27, 2011, 03:36:24 PM
Other then the chin gun what is the primary difference?

Boo

Compared to the late G we have ingame, the tail turret would be different, different style top turret, different style nose glass and cheek gun windows, placement of the ADF "Football" in a different spot, radio room gun, open waist windows would all be visual differences.
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Koski on February 27, 2011, 03:45:49 PM
Compared to the late G we have ingame, the tail turret would be different, different style top turret, different style nose glass and cheek gun windows, placement of the ADF "Football" in a different spot, radio room gun, open waist windows would all be visual differences.

Yet still lot easier to do then create a whole new model. And indeed worth it, B-17F played a major part in WWII and it is a great shame it isn't included in AH plane set even after over 10 years of existance of this flight sim.

 :frown:

Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: olds442 on February 27, 2011, 07:44:21 PM
NOOO!! we need more German *cough* HE177 *COUGH*and russain buffs first
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: skorpion on February 27, 2011, 07:49:11 PM
YES!!!!!! we need more american buffs
why, thank you for agreeing!  :banana:
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: B-17 on February 27, 2011, 09:06:47 PM
NOOO!! we need more German *cough* HE177 *COUGH*and russain buffs first

excuse me... did you say RUSSIAN BUFFS?! like the TU95?
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: olds442 on February 27, 2011, 09:58:40 PM
MORE like the TU2


but more like the HE177 first  :banana: :banana: :banana:



Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: B-17 on February 27, 2011, 10:26:29 PM
you really like that buff, dont you? you realize that if they incoporated that, the throttle controls would be confusing, and if you could get past that, you would have the engine fires to deal with?
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Wildcat1 on February 27, 2011, 10:44:21 PM

(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy329/Wildcat1995/Scared_Face.jpg)
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: B-17 on February 27, 2011, 10:47:45 PM
siggh.... it was coming eventually. my bad
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Wagger on February 28, 2011, 12:21:16 AM
Well now that we have the much, cough, cough, needed B-29 maybe we can get a He-111, or latter version of the Ju-88 series, or a Me-410.   Oh and maybe some soviet bombers and fighters. 
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Guppy35 on February 28, 2011, 12:35:06 AM
Yet still lot easier to do then create a whole new model. And indeed worth it, B-17F played a major part in WWII and it is a great shame it isn't included in AH plane set even after over 10 years of existance of this flight sim.

 :frown:



I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'd  be surprised at this point if HTC went that direction when the 29 just was added and things like the 111, Ki-43 etc would make more sense for any number of reasons.
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Koski on February 28, 2011, 12:44:27 PM
There are loads of a/c that should be added, im all for He-111 for example. What comes to soviet bombers, we have the most important one (which actually is a ground attack a/c). The soviets didn't lay heavily on strategic bombers so no idea adding one. B-17F played a major part in the war so that is one major reason to add it, also,like I pointed out earlier it shouldn't be too hard to modify from the current B-17, hell, if we have 4 different versions of Bf 109G (which is fine, got to say this before I get all the Luftwaffles blowing on my neck ;) ) why can't we have 2 different B-17s is beyond me?

And yes it is probably unrealistic to wait for the F version now that the B-29 was added. Personally I'd have preferred the B-17F (which historically was much more important) before the B-29 but I guess HTC wanted to provide some über candy for people to play with and perhaps attract some new customers.

The major personal reason for me blowing on the B-17F trumpet is that we could have 8th AAF vs LW scenarios spanning from early 1943, without the B-17F this is impossible.
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Guppy35 on February 28, 2011, 02:13:26 PM
I don't necessarily agree that you couldn't do a 1943 scenario with the 17s we have.  You'd just have to close your eyes a bit and pretend their F models.  In terms of bomb load and firepower it's basically the same.  It would be the range and type of fighter escorts that would be a bigger factor
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Fencer51 on February 28, 2011, 04:20:50 PM
The major personal reason for me blowing on the B-17F trumpet is that we could have 8th AAF vs LW scenarios spanning from early 1943, without the B-17F this is impossible.

(Fencer reads this, looks over at his note book, throws his hands up in the air and rips out 4 or 5 pages crumpling them up and throwing them in the trash)  ;)
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: olds442 on March 01, 2011, 06:27:36 AM
you really like that buff, dont you? you realize that if they incoporated that, the throttle controls would be confusing, and if you could get past that, you would have the engine fires to deal with?
well the B29s engs right now just dont randomley catch fire now due to heat

and i want one in the game for 2 reasons 1: we need a german bomber that is worth upping 2: same as #1
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Volron on March 01, 2011, 10:30:48 AM
While I would like to see the He-177, the He-111 or even the Do-17 would be a more appropriate addition.

Now back to topic, What was the primary reason for adding the B-17G over the B-17F in the first place?  Was it put to a vote or did the HTC crew make the call?  While I would really love to see the B-17F, I think the next bomber to be added should be Italian or Russian.  Neither have a bomber to represent them and they both did use them quite a bit.  I'm leaning more towards Italian because currently they only have 2 planes for representation.
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Guppy35 on March 01, 2011, 11:48:34 AM
While I would like to see the He-177, the He-111 or even the Do-17 would be a more appropriate addition.

Now back to topic, What was the primary reason for adding the B-17G over the B-17F in the first place?  Was it put to a vote or did the HTC crew make the call?  While I would really love to see the B-17F, I think the next bomber to be added should be Italian or Russian.  Neither have a bomber to represent them and they both did use them quite a bit.  I'm leaning more towards Italian because currently they only have 2 planes for representation.

Seems to me if you were going to do one B17 then the B17G made the most sense as it covers 43-45 and considering latewar seems to be the primary interest, it covers that well.

The F would be nice for the early PTO MTO and ETO, but The G covers the most ground for one 17 model.
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Tyrannis on March 02, 2011, 12:43:21 AM
i made a thread wishing for the E version myself.

and the b24D.
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: SectorNine50 on March 02, 2011, 01:29:00 AM
Yet still lot easier to do then create a whole new model. And indeed worth it, B-17F played a major part in WWII and it is a great shame it isn't included in AH plane set even after over 10 years of existance of this flight sim.

 :frown:



Would it really serve to fill a gap, though?  I mean, if it's only a little bit different visually, I don't quite see a purpose... :headscratch:
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Tupac on March 02, 2011, 09:26:41 AM
Would it really serve to fill a gap, though?  I mean, if it's only a little bit different visually, I don't quite see a purpose... :headscratch:

Scenarios, AvA etc etc
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Tyrannis on March 02, 2011, 10:16:08 AM
Scenarios, AvA etc etc
would also be included in the EW arena.
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Wildcat1 on March 02, 2011, 12:29:13 PM
would also be included in the EW arena.

mid-war
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Tyrannis on March 02, 2011, 12:43:22 PM
mid-war
if the E version got put in, it could be in early war.
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Koski on March 02, 2011, 01:17:39 PM
Would it really serve to fill a gap, though?  I mean, if it's only a little bit different visually, I don't quite see a purpose... :headscratch:

Well, I ask you to go tell all the LW fanatics they should have only one version of Bf 109 because the versions differ only slightly visually, cmon...  :confused:
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: SectorNine50 on March 02, 2011, 01:28:00 PM
Well, I ask you to go tell all the LW fanatics they should have only one version of Bf 109 because the versions differ only slightly visually, cmon...  :confused:

What?  Each one of the 109's performs very differently.

Based on what has been said in this thread, that is not true for this B-17, unless the performance differences just weren't brought up.
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Tyrannis on March 02, 2011, 01:34:20 PM
Well, I ask you to go tell all the LW fanatics they should have only one version of Bf 109 because the versions differ only slightly visually, cmon...  :confused:
keyword. looks isent everything about an aircraft.

each 109 performs differently. and not every one has the same gun package options.

example: the k4 doesnt have the gonzola 20mm option like he g14 does.

and the f4 doesnt have 13mms.
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Guppy35 on March 02, 2011, 02:09:36 PM
if the E version got put in, it could be in early war.

Oh how I wish folks would do a little  research first.  Define early war.  1942 seems midwar to me. E and F were 42-43 with a few F's soldiering on into 1944 but the G was the main production model from late 43 on.

Would it be nice to have the E and F?  Sure, just like it would be nice to have the P38E, F and H to go with the G.  But performance wise there is little difference to show and visually they aren't that different.

Do I hope HTC gets around to it someday?  Absolutely.  Is it  a priority with so many other birds not modeled at all?  Nope.
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Tyrannis on March 02, 2011, 02:34:09 PM
Oh how I wish folks would do a little  research first.  Define early war.  1942 seems midwar to me. E and F were 42-43 with a few F's soldiering on into 1944 but the G was the main production model from late 43 on.

Would it be nice to have the E and F?  Sure, just like it would be nice to have the P38E, F and H to go with the G.  But performance wise there is little difference to show and visually they aren't that different.

Do I hope HTC gets around to it someday?  Absolutely.  Is it  a priority with so many other birds not modeled at all?  Nope.
was built&entered service in 1941. had its first combat mission in 1942. meaning it could be included in early war just like the p38G is.

could be a lightly perked bomber in early war. and since it can be included in early war it makes it a priority. because the early war planelist is VERY short and needs to be filled.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2452
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Motherland on March 02, 2011, 02:38:50 PM
if we have 4 different versions of Bf 109G (which is fine, got to say this before I get all the Luftwaffles blowing on my neck ;) )
It may be worth noting here that we only have 3 versions of the Bf 109G, and that many more were built than B17s, and that it was in large scale front line service from 1942 until the end of the war.

We have 1 version of the Bf 109G-6 which was built in comparable numbers to the B17.
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Guppy35 on March 02, 2011, 02:39:29 PM
LOL yer not listening :)

Would it be nice?  Yes.  Is it a priority? No.  If you are worried about early war, then I suggest making sure the Beaufighter, Ki-43, He111, Mohawk and any number of Russian and Italian birds get in game first since we have NO examples of those.
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Tyrannis on March 02, 2011, 02:46:19 PM
LOL yer not listening :)

Would it be nice?  Yes.  Is it a priority? No.  If you are worried about early war, then I suggest making sure the Beaufighter, Ki-43, He111, Mohawk and any number of Russian and Italian birds get in game first since we have NO examples of those.
listening to what?
that the b17E isent a priority?
of course im not going to listen to you then. because thats your OPINION. and its an opinion that seems to be coming from someone who doesnt care for EW. (because ive never seen you in there, i could be wrong tho)
so of course im not going to listen to you when your saying its not a priority just because YOU dont think it is. early war has the least amount of planes on its list than any of the other arenas. and i THINK early war planes should be the focus right now. atleast until we have them close to the amount mid war has.
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Ack-Ack on March 02, 2011, 02:50:58 PM
and its an opinion that seems to be coming from someone who doesnt care for EW.

His opinion comes from knowing vast more about WW2 planes than most anyone else on these boards, including you. 

ack-ack
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Guppy35 on March 02, 2011, 02:59:24 PM
listening to what?
that the b17E isent a priority?
of course im not going to listen to you then. because thats your OPINION. and its an opinion that seems to be coming from someone who doesnt care for EW. (because ive never seen you in there, i could be wrong tho)
so of course im not going to listen to you when your saying its not a priority just because YOU dont think it is. early war has the least amount of planes on its list than any of the other arenas. and i THINK early war planes should be the focus right now. atleast until we have them close to the amount mid war has.

So how bout we cut through the crap and get right down to it.  This isn't about what early war needs, or history.  You want a 4 engine heavy in EW for your own purposes, not the betterment of the game as a whole.

If early war is your priority, then as I said, start howling  for the He111, Do-17, Wellington, Hampden, Whitley, Ki-43, Mohawk, Beaufighter, all those Italian and Russian birds from 40-41.

But don't BS us into thinking you are out for the welfare of the EW arena. 
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Tyrannis on March 02, 2011, 03:06:09 PM
So how bout we cut through the crap and get right down to it.  This isn't about what early war needs, or history.  You want a 4 engine heavy in EW for your own purposes, not the betterment of the game as a whole.

If early war is your priority, then as I said, start howling  for the He111, Do-17, Wellington, Hampden, Whitley, Ki-43, Mohawk, Beaufighter, all those Italian and Russian birds from 40-41.

But don't BS us into thinking you are out for the welfare of the EW arena. 
no, i rarely fly the lanc in early war. im perfectly happy with the b25 in there. i just feel that there needs to be a 4 engine heavy in there that would fit in to the timeline more than the lanc does.(ik the lanc was around, but it just feels out of place in EW to me)
and im a personal fan of the E version.
HE111? if we're talking for EW purposes ONLY. the he111 would be low. the ju88 can do its job better than the he111 can.
everything else? sure.
but you still havent named a reason WHY the E shouldnt be included in early war.

naming off other planes that deserve to be put in EW aswell isent a reason why the E shouldnt be added too.
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Guppy35 on March 02, 2011, 03:29:12 PM
I rest my case.  You want it for your own reasons, not what is best for EW.  Nothing wrong with that.  Again as I said, it would be nice, but it most surely is not a priority

My favorite WW2 bird of all time is the Spitfire XII.  My interest goes back 30 years now.  Would I like it in AH?  Sure.  I can give you all kinds of reasons why too.  But in the end, it's not a priority.  Other birds are much more needed to fill out the plane set to help the Scenario/FSO/ Snapshot folks so that for those events they can bring as much history to the game as possible.

Do understand that in the overall scheme of things, like the Spitfire XII, the B17E was a small time player with limited use very early in the ETO and PTO but quickly replaced by the 17F which was then replaced by the 17G with the 17G doing most of the heavy lifting from the end of 43 on.

Hopefully someday we'll get an E and F.  But it's not top of the list by any means in my opinion with all those other birds waiting to have any variant at all in game.
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Ack-Ack on March 02, 2011, 04:14:52 PM
no, i rarely fly the lanc in early war. im perfectly happy with the b25 in there. i just feel that there needs to be a 4 engine heavy in there that would fit in to the timeline more than the lanc does.(ik the lanc was around, but it just feels out of place in EW to me)
and im a personal fan of the E version.

The Lancaster was in action long before the B-17, it does have a place in the EW plane set.


Quote
HE111? if we're talking for EW purposes ONLY. the he111 would be low.

That would depend on the pilot's tactics and not dicated by the plane.  The He 111 was a medium to low altitude bomber, one that was very good in its roll.


Quote
the ju88 can do its job better than the he111 can.

Not really, you should look up both planes and do some research.

Quote
but you still havent named a reason WHY the E shouldnt be included in early war.

You should go back and read when Dan wrote again, he listed a few reasons why.  The problem is that you're ignoring the reasons because they don't mesh with yours.


Quote
naming off other planes that deserve to be put in EW aswell isent a reason why the E shouldnt be added too.

Yes it is.  He's naming the other planes that the EW plane set needs more than the B-17E and he's correct.  There are many more EW planes that are needed before any thought of adding the B-17F or E models.

ack-ack
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: B-17 on March 02, 2011, 10:22:46 PM
The Lancaster was in action long before the B-17, it does have a place in the EW plane set.

not sure i agree with that entirely. the B-17 flew july '35, was delivered in june '39, and in action by 1940 or so was the B-17C i believe. the lancaster (manchester III at the time) was flying january '41.
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Tyrannis on March 02, 2011, 10:27:01 PM
not sure i agree with that entirely. the B-17 flew july '35, was delivered in june '39, and in action by 1940 or so was the B-17C i believe. the lancaster (manchester III at the time) was flying january '41.
the b17 entered SERVICE before the lancaster did.true.

but the lancaster saw combat service, or as akak put it "Action" before the b17 did.
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Guppy35 on March 02, 2011, 10:30:21 PM
RAF bad early B17Cs that proved to be a failure in combat due to any number of reasons.  Only a squadron, but that was July 41 when they first dropped a bomb in anger
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: B-17 on March 02, 2011, 10:39:17 PM
ah... my bad. i just know the RAF was operating 20 of them in late '40 and had lost 8 in 3-4 weeks
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: AWwrgwy on March 03, 2011, 12:03:45 AM
Quote
The First Official Mission of the 8th Air Force, Mission Number 1, using their own planes, Boeing B-17 Flying Fortresses, did not occur until August 17, 1942 when they attacked Rouen / Sotteville marshalling yard in France with 12 aircraft. All returned safely.

The 8th AF flew B-17Es until September 5, 1942. Due to combat losses, brand new B-17Fs of the 92nd BG were used as replacement aircraft for 97th BG losses. In return, the 92nd BG received the 97th's battle weary B-17Es.

Most B-17Fs in the Pacific were stationed at Pearl Harbor for "defense". The first B-17F, sn 41-24446, arrived in the South Pacific August 15, 1942 and was immediately sidelined when propeller governor failed and there were no spare parts available.

The first loss of a B-17F in the pacific, sn 41-24354, occurred on August 26, 1942 as a result of AAA while bombing shipping in Milne Bay, New Guinea from 1500 feet.

Early War Arena: 1939-early1942?
Mid War Arena: late1942-1943?
Late War Arena: All of the above + 1944-1945?

B-17s really don't make the cut for EW at all. Any B-17s. The U.S. barely makes the EW as it didn't enter the war until almost 1942.


wrongway
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Tyrannis on March 03, 2011, 12:12:40 AM
The 8th AF flew B-17Es until September 5, 1942. Due to combat losses, brand new B-17Fs of the 92nd BG were used as replacement aircraft for 97th BG losses. In return, the 92nd BG received the 97th's battle weary B-17Es.

Most B-17Fs in the Pacific were stationed at Pearl Harbor for "defense". The first B-17F, sn 41-24446, arrived in the South Pacific August 15, 1942 and was immediately sidelined when propeller governor failed and there were no spare parts available.

The first loss of a B-17F in the pacific, sn 41-24354, occurred on August 26, 1942 as a result of AAA while bombing shipping in Milne Bay, New Guinea from 1500 feet.

Early War Arena: 1939-early1942?
Mid War Arena: late1942-1943?
Late War Arena: All of the above + 1944-1945?

B-17s really don't make the cut for EW at all. Any B-17s. The U.S. barely makes the EW as it didn't enter the war until almost 1942.


wrongway
the b17E was built and entered military service in 1941.


entering military service in a AF that became a part of the war in 1941 should qualify it to be included in EW.

but because it didnt see combat service until 1942, then it would need to be perked.
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: AWwrgwy on March 03, 2011, 12:35:32 AM
the b17E was built and entered military service in 1941.


entering military service in a AF that became a part of the war in 1941 should qualify it to be included in EW.

but because it didnt see combat service until 1942, then it would need to be perked.

By that logic we would have F7Fs, F8Fs, and P-80s.

B-17Fs also didn't enter service until 1942. 38 B-17Cs were produced in 1940. 42 B-17Ds were produced in 1941. 512 B-17Es were produced in 1941.

Part of the "unofficial" criteria (just because i can't find a quote) for addition to AH has always been "saw combat at squadron strength."


wrongway
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Pigslilspaz on March 03, 2011, 02:21:51 AM
So how bout we cut through the crap and get right down to it.  This isn't about what early war needs, or history.  You want a 4 engine heavy in EW

May I suggest the Short Stirling?  :D  :noid
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Ack-Ack on March 03, 2011, 03:58:25 AM
May I suggest the Short Stirling?  :D  :noid

I think that would be an excellent choice for the EW and also for the MW plane set.

ack-ack
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Tyrannis on March 03, 2011, 02:31:49 PM
By that logic we would have F7Fs, F8Fs, and P-80s.

B-17Fs also didn't enter service until 1942. 38 B-17Cs were produced in 1940. 42 B-17Ds were produced in 1941. 512 B-17Es were produced in 1941.

Part of the "unofficial" criteria (just because i can't find a quote) for addition to AH has always been "saw combat at squadron strength."


wrongway
not really.

i thought the plane had to ether be in service, or join service in an AF that entered the war. and had to have a combat record in the war. both of which the E model fits.

america entered the war on december 8th. 1941. the b17 E was in service then when america entered the war. 1941 is considered early war therefore would permit it to be aloud in there.


but, because it didnt see combat service until 1942. then that would be why it would be perked. like the p38G and fw190A-5 would.
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Ack-Ack on March 03, 2011, 05:51:29 PM

but, because it didnt see combat service until 1942. then that would be why it would be perked. like the p38G and fw190A-5 would.

Frankly, the P-38G doesn't belong in the EW plane set.

ack-ack
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Tyrannis on March 03, 2011, 06:00:38 PM
Frankly, the P-38G doesn't belong in the EW plane set.

ack-ack
the G isent really a big problem in there. you dont see too many people upping one. and those that do dont really fly it right. so it doesnt bother anything.


the fw190 seems more of a EW disruption than the p38 does.
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Ack-Ack on March 03, 2011, 11:00:00 PM
the G isent really a big problem in there. you dont see too many people upping one. and those that do dont really fly it right. so it doesnt bother anything.


the fw190 seems more of a EW disruption than the p38 does.

The reasons why the P-38G doesn't belong in the EW plane set has nothing to do with it's "capabilities" but rather it's not an early war plane and should be only in the MW and LW arenas.

ack-ack
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Tyrannis on March 03, 2011, 11:13:12 PM
The reasons why the P-38G doesn't belong in the EW plane set has nothing to do with it's "capabilities" but rather it's not an early war plane and should be only in the MW and LW arenas.

ack-ack
1.i believe they put the p38G in there as a substitute for the p38E.which was in service with the army air corps by 1941.


but of course we dont have the E version, so they perked the G version to make up for that. if we had the E version it prob wouldnt be perked.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=495


Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: SmokinLoon on March 03, 2011, 11:18:26 PM
Along with a B-24D.  :aok :aok :aok

This would be a HUGE thing to have.  The D model would be true to my heart.  ;)
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Koski on March 04, 2011, 03:07:31 AM
keyword. looks isent everything about an aircraft.

each 109 performs differently. and not every one has the same gun package options.

example: the k4 doesnt have the gonzola 20mm option like he g14 does.

and the f4 doesnt have 13mms.

I meant to say, there isnt that big difference between say G2 and G6 and G14 and K4. Lol and ofcourse there are "only" 3 G versions :)

Yes there is difference in armament BUT so is between the B-17F and B-17G, the nose gun was a big factor in repelling frontal attacks and its importance shouldnt be played down. Also the B-17G was somewhat slower than the F version.
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Tyrannis on March 04, 2011, 12:35:55 PM
I meant to say, there isnt that big difference between say G2 and G6 and G14 and K4. Lol and ofcourse there are "only" 3 G versions :)

Yes there is difference in armament BUT so is between the B-17F and B-17G, the nose gun was a big factor in repelling frontal attacks and its importance shouldnt be played down. Also the B-17G was somewhat slower than the F version.
the G2 and G6 are in the game for scenarios, and to act as the mid-war 109's. the g14 has a much better engine than the other two but is also heavier. theres many other varients of the 109 that werent put in the game.

Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Motherland on March 04, 2011, 02:16:32 PM
I meant to say, there isnt that big difference between say G2 and G6 and G14 and K4. Lol and ofcourse there are "only" 3 G versions :)

Yes there is difference in armament BUT so is between the B-17F and B-17G, the nose gun was a big factor in repelling frontal attacks and its importance shouldnt be played down. Also the B-17G was somewhat slower than the F version.
Between the G and the K series you're looking at a service record spanning from 1942-1945 and at least twice as many aircraft built as total B17 production.
That alone warrants the myriad of variants.

We should still have a G-series/AS or a later version of the G-6...
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: STEELE on March 06, 2011, 02:33:08 PM
G6/AS wouldve been a mazing in this latest 44-45 Scenario, instead we had to make due with the 43 model which was a total dog at high alt
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: B-17 on March 06, 2011, 08:46:36 PM
i think this thread has been hacked...
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: skorpion on March 06, 2011, 09:05:54 PM
i think this thread has been hacked...
i think your right...
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: B-17 on March 07, 2011, 09:28:13 PM
oh well. honestly, the only part of AH i take real interest in is the bombing aspect. fighters have too many sub-versions of versions of types. anyways, sure, the lighter armed version of the B-17 would be cool, but what what about the YB-40 with like, twice the guns :D
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: Tyrannis on March 07, 2011, 10:13:14 PM
oh well. honestly, the only part of AH i take real interest in is the bombing aspect. fighters have too many sub-versions of versions of types. anyways, sure, the lighter armed version of the B-17 would be cool, but what what about the YB-40 with like, twice the guns :D
the yb-40 was an experiment that didnt last. i think only 10 were built total,they were so loaded down tho that they couldnt keep up with the bombers they were ment to protect. so in the end it became a failed project.
Title: Re: B-17F
Post by: B-17 on March 08, 2011, 09:05:48 PM
sigh... its small details like that that ruin our lives... oh well. it was a cool experiment nonetheless