Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Citabria on December 30, 2001, 03:11:00 AM
-
1. only 4 engine bomber besides b29 that will survive in the MA.
2. carries large bombload.
3. heavy defensive armament
4. AH needs a new buff that can survive the MA.
5. the b24 is so ugly that it is beautiful.
6. I want to fly the B24 liberator
-
(http://www.aviation-history.com/consolidated/b24-1.jpg)
-
And the B17 is not survivable?
Anyway the B24 was said to much more vulnerable than a B17, especially to catasrophic fuselage fires. I hear this was due to some very vulnerable fuel lines running through the fuselage. If anything it would die easier than a B17.
B24 is not ugly, it looks great. :)
Im all for it it in AH, but hopefully after some other planes are put in.
-
b24 is roadkille theres no need for it.
AH buffs are easy kills so would a b24 be an easy kill.
b25 maybe but enough us ack platforms.......
Fighters and more fighter earlier the better....
-
B24 is an excellent request. I don't think there's any need to scoff at any new addition to the planeset, except perhaps MORE models of stuff we already have. We got nothing but time and the best in the buisness doing the hard work, I'm sure everyone will be happy eventually. The more planes the merrier. I'm just guessing, and hopeing we get the B-29. HTC did say in the MA once a long time ago that the 29 would make an excellent perk plane hehe.
I want MORE MORE MORE and I want it NOW! They day I spend 10 or 15 minutes browsing the hangar for a good "pick" to fly, I'll be way happy.
Tumor
[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: Tumor ]
-
yes. bring the B24 to AH.
-
thow in a b25h and ill go for it :)
-
I disagree and think it's an attractive bomber with simple lines for ease of construction. But would you be expecting one of the early variants or the later variants with all them guns?
-
4 engine buffs that would survive in MA:
He 177
P 108
Coranado
Emily
Pe 8
The B 24 is a nice looking plane but why add another US heavy?, unless you are talking the B 29 whice I would rather see than a B 24, and you all know how I feal about adding more US stuff. I do howeaver feal that a Cornado would be a great choice for a US Buff/Sea plane. I say if you must do another US plane add a Coranado.
-
Theres far too many bloody fighters in AH,we need more bombers (medium bombers) especially on the German side,plus Id like to see more Gvs,trucks,Jeeps and tanks,we need to branch out a bit,get the strat sorted,not add more fighters :(
-
Originally posted by brady:
The B 24 is a nice looking plane but why add another US heavy
Because it played a very significant role in the war. Its name is infamous, unlike the AC you have mentioned. It was a maintstay of the USAAF. You just dont want to see more AC that are US in origin? Even given this AC's substantial credentials?
-
I love the Liberator but I can think of a dozen planes that would add more to the planeset.
-
Well Funked....let's hear 'em.
-
The Coranado is of US orgine.
In general I am apposed to the addation of US anything unless it is to enhance or fill a gap in an area that neads filling. the Coranado is a prime example. We have a US heavy, in the intrest of fairness I feal the adation of aircraft in other areas or for other countries would be more benifical for the MA. The primary reasion I generaly appose the addation of more US stuff is that we have so much of it already.
-
The B24 carried a larger bombload than the B17, and it also had a longer ranger and higher cruising speed. There were also more B24s produced than the B17. About the only places the B24 falls short to the B17 is in defensive armament (some didnt carry ball turrets), maximum ceiling, and the the amount of bomb tonnage dropped in World War II (B17 dropped more bombs in WW2 than B24).
So in conclusion, I would rather see the B24 introduced into AH than some unheard of piece of crap russian or german or itallian bomber that had a production run of about 20 aircraft and has no chance of surviving in AH combat.
-
I personally would like to see every plane that was modelled in Warbirds Modelled in here and then some
then have the arenas broken down into time periods
1938-1941 european
1938-1941 pacific
1941-1943 european
1941-1943 pacific
1943-1944 european
1943-1944 pacific
with 1945 being its own arena so all the jet dweebs can hang out and shoot each other down
Of course there are a few planes not modelled in either that I would also like to see added like the aerocobra and the gloster meteor for the 1945 arena so the damn 262's will have some competition
:eek:
-
With all due respect, Fdiron, you are wrong here.
The Russians produced the Il-4 by the thousands. It was one of the best medium bombers of the war. The Tu-2 was not far behind. The SM79 was a superlative torpedo bomber. As in the B29 thread, this plane is in the "it would be great later" category.
-
B24 would be nice.
Would be even nicer to get a Jap or Russian bomber first. The US is well represented, the Brits got a great buff, the LW has a good milkrunner...
-
I'd love the B-24 in AH. As far as German 'bombers' go.. no thanks. I'd much rather see the German Zerstorsers instead (110,410) and the fantastic He-219.
-
Originally posted by Urchin:
I'd love the B-24 in AH. As far as German 'bombers' go.. no thanks. I'd much rather see the German Zerstorsers instead (110,410) and the fantastic He-219.
cough, I am picking up myself off the floor :)
Thx Urchin :)
-
NO!. You can after the A-26, something that would REALLY be usefull and survivable in the MA.
And its purtier ;) :D
-
Ammo
416mph, 42k ceiling, 4x30mm cannon, 2x20mm cannon... nothing to sneeze at. He219 would give Lancs at alt a nasty fright with the oblique cannon.
[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: Kieran ]
-
Ya know what HTC screwed up by adding the B 17 instead of the B 24 :), is it me or is this the mother of all catch 22's? The only reasion we don't have both is the time it takes to model theam, and prodduction numbers are not realy revelent when deciding what aircraft should be added, yes the B 24 was produced in huge numbers and was vital to the war effort. The Ki 67 was not produced in huge numbers by comparision but was vital to the Japanese war effort at the time. What is vital to HTC in deciding what to add? Dificult to say, depends on what you are talking about, fighters, tanks, ships, buffs. Insomuch as buffs are concerened, i can't imagine that a B 24 would be vital at this point ( I hope that goes for an A 26 as well, I suspect howeaver that is not the case), the sole reasion for this is the presence of the B 17. Personaly I would rather see the B 24 than the B 17, I like the B 24 more, always have.
On the subject of the A 26, I suspect it is a likely addation because of it's spead, and aramement and durabality, it is the best in it's class, and as Pyro has stated in the past he does not realy care what the country of orgin is he simply looks at how capable the platform is.
Bering this in mind, Planes like the He 177,Cant Z 1007( better than a SM 79),P 108, TU 2, Ki 67, Coranado, Me 410, and the A 26, all would be great addations to the MA
-
Oh I wasnt saying that keiren. I was just commenting on urchin's promotion for a b24. I am a big supporter of all the LW twin fighter/bombers we can get!! Not as much as I want to fly them (I do) :) But because the 56th FG faced these AC in large numbers. Th bigger the planeset, the happier I become. I think there are many exciting things coming for our planeset, I have seen a few things that most people havent....Trust me, there will be some happy people :) The B24 would be nice I think.
Everyone has there own logic for what they think is needed in AH. Brady has an idea about giving some diversity for the different countries represented here. I am looking at it differently. Everyone here has there own ideas :)
<S>
-
Thanks ammo.
<S>
-
the b24 from the bomber dweebs point of view is the most logical choice for a new buff.
buff dweebs need more bombers that "Can Do" the job. get to the target, bomb it, and fight their way out.
people wonder why buffs are not used much in the MA. it is a combination of 3 buffs that can survive in the MA , carry a heavy bomb load and no new buffs that can.
flying these three planes in the MA gets old.
throw the buff dweebs a new toy that they can actually use in the arena.
I love seeing these new jap and ruskie buffs but they are featherwieghts with no real usefulness in heavy bombardment er buffing.
-
Well seperating medieum from Heavy buffs, and focusing on the latter. The He 177 and the P 108, and the Coranado could all do what u say, all cary heavy loads and all are heavely armed, so why not add one of theam instead of a B 24 other than you may like the B 24 for personal reasions more?
Insomuch as medieum buffs are concerened the TU 2 and Ki 67 are both fast and well armed, although the latter has a lighter bomb load, the Cant Z 1007 has a bigger bomb load than the B 26 and a better defensive arament than the JU 88, and is torpedo capable, realy with the inclushion of the TU 2 and ki 67 only Italy will not have a medieum Buff.
-
I would think the B24 is a good candidate because it is popular and would survive the MA and would allow for some nice Scenario missions outside the MA. However, Fester shot me down today so I have to rescind my support for the Liberator. heh heh. ;-)
-
The B-24 doesn't bring anything new to AH. B-17s participated in almost all actions that the B-24 did and so may be used in those scenarios. The B-17 and Lanc provide a nice choice, take firepower or take bombload. The B-24 is only a slight adjustment to the B-17, take a couple more bombs or be a little bit tougher. The higher cruise speed of the B-24 would be irrelevant in AH because nobody uses cruising speed. Everybody just firewalls it and keeps it there.
I would like to see the B-29A as a perk bomber. That would be awesome.
Kieran,
From what I've read Heinkel said the He219 would do 419mph, but in Luftwaffe service it never could maintain even 400mph.
The stats on it are "manufacturer" stats.
In the actual event, the Mossie NF.XXX proved to be better.
I'd definately like to see an He219 though. Real neat looking aircraft.
-
Yeah, I'm not sure what niche it would find, but that's a lot of firepower. The oblique cannons are the real interesting part, though. No longer would you need to get above the buff for an effective run, and the Lanc especially would have a much tougher way to go.
-
what the b24 is is an additional aircraft in the bomber category that will get used by the players in the main arena.
its that simple.
-
it adds nothing to the main that isnt already available.
there are twin eng and early fighters that would be more practical.
also the planesets are really limited for the vvs ijn/ijaa and italy.
Then consider the time it takes too model it. Time that could be better used to give us something that would make more sense or atleast fills a gap in one of the planesets.
No more 4 eng fluffers...........
-
And so would the P 108, He 177 ,Coranado, and B 29.
B 24J:
290mph
10 12.7mm mg's
Normal bomb load of 8,800lb's
B 29A:
358moh
12 12.7mm mg's,1 20mm cannon
max bomb load 20,000lb's!
He 177A-5/R2
303 mph
1 7.9mm mg 81, 4 13mm mg 131's, 2 20mm cannons.
13,300 lb's of bombs
P 108:
267mph
8 12.7mm mg's
3 torpedos or 7,716lb's of bombs
PB2Y Coronado:
223mph
8 12.7mm mg's
8,000lb's internal pluss 4,000 external
torpedo capable.
Now the B 29 is obviously in a class by itself,it redefines heavy :) and screams perk me! :)
Obviously all the rest are capable of self defense, and they all cary a very usable bomb load. now what would add somthing we dont already hve in the MA?
P 108 would give us a heavy with a 3 torpedo punch, give the Axis a heavy, and Italy a great buff.This Buff would also be available for all Scenarious, combat theather, and other events set from early war to mid war.
He 177 would give the Axis a heavy buff,HTC would be indunated with request for modeling Air to surface anti shiping missels,He 177 was used in the west and the east and as such be available for scenarious.It's bomb load and defensive arament would make it very atractave to use.
PB2Y Coronado:
Out of all the above buff types this plane would bring the most in terms of new capabalitys to the MA, it is a seaplane. Although the slowest of theam all it is bristling with 50 cals and packs a huge load, and is torpedo capable.
B 24J:
Other than being one of my favorate US buff's I feal it is redundant at this point, do to the fact we have the B 17.
-
"it adds nothing to the main that isnt already available.
there are twin eng and early fighters that would be more practical."
Gotta agree with ya here. While I like the B24, it makes me no real difference if it gets added soon or not. Same for any LW heavy bombers......we already got heavy buffs in AH, only thing keeping you from using them is contraints within the CT, or you are too stubborn to fly it if it is US/British made.
I may be wrong, but I see too much "us against them" mentality when it comes to new planes. I have been guilty of the same at times in the past, but I have tried hard to not be that way. Go into the CT, you will see me in LW rides as often as you do Allied planes. Some folks just have this mindset that they can only fly LW or Axis planes when there are already planes available to do the job they want to do, and the same principle applies in reverse to folks who will only fly Allied planes.
The way I see it, the Axis, or more specifically the Germans, only had 3 things that were without peer in the Allied inventory: Me-262 (which we have in AH), armored vehicles (although the T-34 would give them a run for their money IMO), and the V-1/V-2 programs. The V-1 or V-2 would be pretty wild to have in AH.....teh V-1 "could" be chased down and killed, while the V-2 was unstoppable......neither was real accurate, as in pinpoint accuracy, but they did their jobs of keeping the British worried, though not quite to the extent that old Adolf envisioned.
Wanna add something unique to AH, add those two......make them both perks ;) ,say about 55 for the V-1 and 350 for the V-2, as it is not gonna be stopped once it is fired. But you better be damn good on setting the coordinates for it :D.
I don't see the need for a hvy LW, Japanese, or Italian bomber, as in all honesty, past June 1942 in the PTO and I guess 1943 in the ETO, the Axis was pretty much on the defensive, was it not? Not much use for a strategic heavy bomber from what I recollect. The only exception would be the Emily, but that is the only one I can think of. I may be wrong, as I am not real familiar with the LW activities on the eastern front, whether or not they tried to use strategic bombing such the Allied heavies were doing to the Reich. But from what I have read, in numerous places, the LW went from offensive to defensive in their aircraft designs.
Just my $0.02 worth on this subject.........
:p
-
The only thing I see wrong with your thoughts, EddieK, is that we can only postulate what the Germans might have been able to accomplish with true heavy bombers in the numbers available to the Allies. In the East it would have meant being able to reach beyond the Urals, where the Russian factories were located- this would have had the effect of slowing down Russian production, which is what contributed greatly to Germany's destruction in that theatre. In the West it would have been difficult for the Allies to marshall all the supplies in England that were virtually untouchable by the LW, arguably delaying or even preventing D-Day.
We are very fortunate the Germans did not have anything with the range or bomb capacity of our heavies.
-
Not sure exactly how to take you response, Kieran.
We can only postulate a lot of things, what "might have been" if you will...........
But after reading your reply, and thinking about it, I still stand with what I said earlier. The LW went from an offensive force in 1940-42 (??) to almost totally defensive in the years from 1943 to the close of the war. Sure, they had prototypes of heavy bombers, I really got into the writeup on their "New York" bomber....until I realized it looked a LOT like a B-29.
The jist of my post was that I think it is time to stop with the "we need this because the Allies have that" mentality.
Unless you're running some historical scenario, what we have in AH is pretty damn good; even then, the staff running the events do their best to make substitutions that will closely match what one "could have" expected.
Want new buffs? Japanese Betty needs to be put in, if for no other reason than it was one of their mainstays. Slide a Russian buff in there somewhere, too.
Too many times, I see people in here, myself included at times, making pleas for "We NEED xxxxx..." when what they are really saying is "hey, I want this one."
Then it becomes a flamefest. Heck, I "want" a P-47M, but I won't throw a fit if we don't get one. I "want" the Spitfire XIV here too, if for no other reason than it is WAY past time for one. It came in second only to the 190D9 in that poll Pyro posted a year ago, yet it was not introduced, in part to the complaints (notice I did not say "whines") from the LW clique. I voted for the 190D9 too, even tho I don't regularly fly LW iron.
Guys, try thinking about fairness and balance in the AH planesets, not just LW vs the Allies..............
-
Hey, I am not championing the LW by any means. You make the point that heavies would not have helped Germany (or the Axis) by 1943; I don't agree. If you think about it, Britain was very much defensive in 1940, and look how things turned out. ;)
I would rather see a balanced set of medium bombers from the different countries. That is my stated stance.
-
The B-24 does bring something new to the arena, and that is a new heavy bomber. As of now, the bomber-folk only have two choices. Though bombers aren't going to have the wide range in performance that fighters will have, it can be argued that any new late-war fighter introduced won't bring anything new to the MA either. We have fast, manueverable, rugged and ugly. I'm willing to throw the heavies a bone and give them a new choice and the B-24 is a valid one.
But no matter what happens, I hope we don't see any more perk aircraft which are really only for the rich in here anyway.
-
<S> Kieran.......I am NOT gonna get into a debate with someone I have a lot of respect for......
You misunderstand me it would appear. I think that where you and I are miscommunicating is evident in "you make the point that heavies would not have helped Germany (or the Axis) by 1943; I don't agree."
It's not that they would not have helped if deployed and used effectively, it is the point that they WERE NOT used in that manner that I am trying to get across.
IMO, adding them just because they might have helped them opens a whole can of worms for all involved. When you cross into the "might have been" spectrum, you invite justified claims for a whole host of aircraft that "might have" been holy monsters had they entered combat, notably the F8F, the F7F, latter series of F4U's, P-51H(K?), P-47J, etc. All these "might have" or rather"would have" seen combat had the need arisen, with the F8F being a whisker away from actually doing it in reality. IMO, again, the Axis held NO edge in prop engined aircraft, as anything they had in their inventory had a counterpart in the Allied inventory.
As an aside, just from curiousity, anyone else notice that these debates almost always turn into one over the ETO, and rarely the PTO?
[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: eddiek ]
-
Right. We can extrapolate forever, and most of it is useless. I am only talking about a specific issue, totally separate from the rest of the discussion. My view of what is helpful to AH is that variety is good. I also believe it only fair to try to represent each country, and if it can be done in an equitable manner, so much the better.
As to why the debates wind up in the ETO... these were different wars in many ways. The naval aspect of the PTO made for a different type of war, and strategic bombing didn't have the large impact until much later in the war. Carrier operations and island campaigns are far different from the types of conflict found in Europe or the Eastern Front. There were far more varieties of aircraft developed to carry the campaign in the ETO, therefore more room to argue what would have done what to whom and how.
No problems with insulting me, you weren't directing anything personal at me, I understood you. Besides, conflict is healthy if it remains respectful- it's how ideas get exchanged, challenged, and assimilated.
-
(http://home-1.worldonline.cz/~cz088436/camo/B-24D-90.JPG)
Yes please :D
-
the b24 was the u.s. pacific heavy bomber.
the b17 was not even in the pacific during most of the war.
only at the begining was the b17 used in the pacific.