Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: BangerAK on February 13, 2003, 02:33:43 PM
-
AH2 should include a B-24 Liberator. AH1 lacked this.
THis bomber was A LOT better than the B-17. It could carry more bombs, fly higher, faster, and I think had a greater range.
-
I agree, b24 saw a LOT of action esp in the pacific.
Big plane, good payload, fun to fly.
-
B-25s, as well! Now that is a fun aircraft, and still has substantial gun positions!
-
Yes, the liberator is needed
-
If i remember correctly the 24 could not fly as high as the 17, and could not fly as fast as the 17 at high altitude. Plus it had that problem with the wings being weak. BUt other than that
ADD THE B-24 LIBERATOR TO AH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
They also built a lot more of them for a couple of reasons:
1. They were easier too build (more in less time).
2. They needed more replacements (easier to shoot down :D)
It definitely belongs in the game, but so do many other planes yet to be modeled. Germans and Japanese need heavy bombers more than US at present.
-
Originally posted by BangerAK
THis bomber was A LOT better than the B-17. It could carry more bombs, fly higher, faster, and I think had a greater range.
LOL
I talked with one veteran who flew as a gunner in both the B-17 and B-24.
He wouldn't say anything bad about the B-17 and couldn't say anything good about the B-24. He hated the B-24.
The B-24 had four advatages over B-17:
1) Easier to build
2) Longer range
3) Faster cruising speed
4) Larger payload
The B-17 had these advantages:
1) Tougher
2) Better defensive firepower
3) Higher operating altitude
4) Faster top speed
Unless HTC models cruising speed as a requirement (and frankly I wouldn't be the least surprised if the ToD at least models it) the B-17 is faster, tougher, better armed, flies higher but carries 2,000lbs* less and is a bit shorter ranged.
* The B-17 is modeled with it's typical bomb load of 6,000lbs, not its maximum load of 17,000lbs. I would expect the B-24 to be modeled with its typical load of 8,000lbs.
-
As others have said ... the 24 ain't neccesarily better than the 17 ... but I agree: AHII:TOD needs the 24 ... and the 25 ... and a more rounded out Pacific ps.
Salute!
-
Perhaps a Jap bomber would be better.
I'd definitely like to see the Pe-2 or Tu-2 over the B-25.
-
Then again, the bomb damage model may need to be refined, and then we will need some more bombsorts. For instance, it's not so real being able to strafe shore batteries to the death, etc etc. For that we need the Tallboy/Grand Slam for the Lannie...
I read somewhere that the B17 had a lot higher ceiling than the Lancaster. I wonder why, and if it still were so if the Lancaster was carrying the same load as a B17, not the double.
Anyone?
-
Hmm I have 2 surving relatives who flew in the b-24. Both will say it was a tough bird and will staunchly defend it against the myth that it was weaker than the b-17.
Anyhow it would be nice to have it from a historical perspective
-
My Dad's uncle flew one out of North Africa. He always spoke highly of the plane and never said one thing against it.
This is a plane that has been too long neglected by online flight sims. Please put it in AH2.
-
Not necesarily neglected. Just sorta the underdog.
-
Isnt she beautiful....that sexy piece of aircraft ;)
-
She can maneuver well, too....which, in retrospect, was a major problem. The thin Davis wing made her hard to handle in formation...
-
Originally posted by Tequilla
Hmm I have 2 surving relatives who flew in the b-24. Both will say it was a tough bird and will staunchly defend it against the myth that it was weaker than the b-17.
The Germans rated the B-24 far lower than the B-17. They found that it took far less to shoot down B-24s than B-17s and attacking them was less dangerous.
-
Well the Germans used alot of explosive shells....the B-17s frame simply had more lateral spars than the B-24s...requirement of a rounder airframe...
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The Germans rated the B-24 far lower than the B-17. They found that it took far less to shoot down B-24s than B-17s and attacking them was less dangerous.
My granddad flew -24s. While he would never talk about operational flying, he would talk ya to sleep about training and the planes themselves.
The one thing I remember most from his comparisons of 17 vs 24 was this:
If ya wanna take a heavy bomb load real far from home, and fairly quickly, take the -24.
If ya wanna make it home after deliverying your load... take the -17.
That being said, we still need the -24
-
B-24 (D and/or J)
He-111 H-3
Illyushin Il-4
SM. 79 or CANT Z. 1007
G4M1 "Betty"
(The Japanese, like the Germans, need a slower bomber. In historical scenarios the Ju-88A-4 and Ki-67 "Peggy" are much faster than the earlier models they are substituting for. The Ki-67's max speed was 334 mph. The G4M1's max speed was only 266 mph.)
MRPLUTO VMF-323 ~Death Rattlers~ MAG-33
-
Don't for get the B29 and it atomic bomb which by the way should be in AHII becuase the b29 and its bomb where the most important thing in WWII becuase IT ENDED IT!
BOOM!!!!
-
You are on meds usually, right? :D
-
Mr.Pluto,
You are aware that the Axis early war fighters are in exactly the same boat as the Allied early war fighters, right?
The Boston Mk III can do 345mph, far too fast for an A6M2, Bf110C-4b or even Bf109E-4 to intercept.
Also, I disagree about the Ju88A-4. It is only very slightly faster than the Ju88A-5 of the BoB. The biggest difference is that people run it at full throttle 100% of the time in AH, whereas the Germans had to use cruise settings to conserve fuel and save the engines.
These bombers are needed for the early way:
B-25C
G4M2
Wellington Mk III
-
Any bomber would be nice for me... (but Italy and USSR lacks a bomber,, SM 84 or Pe8 would be nice) But B24 is a good choice.
-
Karnak:
You're right, the Boston Mk III, being a 1942 model, is too fast for 1940 era Axis fighters. Checking the "Illustrated Encyclopedia of Military Aircraft" I found a much lower max speed for the Boston: 304 mph @ 13k. Hmmmm.:confused:
Anyway, the B-25c, Wellington, and G4M2 (I wrote G4M1 above; M2 might be better) would all be good. How about the Bristol Blenheim Mk1V, too?
******
In terms of mph difference, the A-4 is only slightly faster than the BoB A-5. But, I figured out once, it means that a pursuing Hurricane I would take 50% longer to catch the A-4. So instead of 6 minutes, it would take 9. It's a judgment call if you consider that significant. I do. Minutes count in air combat.
MRPLUTO
-
AH needs this the P-61 Black Widow
-
The lib was the workhorse of the war.Not only in the ETO , but in North Africa, and the South Pacific as well. To properly do events for these areas we need the B24. :)
Besides, I know a bunch who might fly here ifluff'n you had it. ;)
blkmgc
-
The strength of the B-17 is the round fuselage that allows stresses from damage to dissipate into the surrounding structure. The skin is the strength there. On the other hand it's wings take their strength from the corrugated layer between the two spars underneath the skin top and bottom. The layer is what hold that wings structural integrity together and is able to dissipate damage extremely well into the surrounding structure. The B-24 had neither design to the extreme as does the 17. Not a fault, just different design philosophies. One was built for survivability the other was built to do a job, with survivability as an afterthought.