B-29 Super Fortress

[Relorian]

                         A small part? About 4,000 were made and they flew combat missions for about 15 months of the last stage of the war. They flew 34,000 sorties and dropped 160,000 tons of bombs on Japan single handily destroying or damaging almost all their cities and industrial production. Of course all of it ending with the atomic bomb attacks. The B-29 basically destroyed Japanese capability to conduct modern war.

                       A "comparatively small part"? Boy I dont know where you got that idea from.

                     

Take those stats and compare them to the B-17 or B-24, Throw in the JU-88 or HE-111 (Which NEEDS to be in the game LONG before the 29). Now tell me its a "big" contribution.  Other bombers are  far more urgently needed before we even contemplate adding the b-29.

These things pop up every few days it seems though. Noobs who just joined thinking they NEED the b-29. Let me give you all a word of advice. The Lancaster is your friend. The B-17/24/25/26 is your friend. Or if your like me and enjoy flying other non american/brit planes... The JU-88 or B5N are your friends. The JU-87 is your friend too... just more like a slow friend with a big boom. The word of advice is: Use the current bombers, DONT ask for a bomber that would totally ruin AH2

[opposum]

Is it just me are does a post on B-29 come out every 2 weeks.

i thought it was every other day 

[angelsandair]

Take those stats and compare them to the B-17 or B-24, Throw in the JU-88 or HE-111 (Which NEEDS to be in the game LONG before the 29). Now tell me its a "big" contribution.  Other bombers are  far more urgently needed before we even contemplate adding the b-29.

These things pop up every few days it seems though. Noobs who just joined thinking they NEED the b-29. Let me give you all a word of advice. The Lancaster is your friend. The B-17/24/25/26 is your friend. Or if your like me and enjoy flying other non american/brit planes... The JU-88 or B5N are your friends. The JU-87 is your friend too... just more like a slow friend with a big boom. The word of advice is: Use the current bombers, DONT ask for a bomber that would totally ruin AH2

you kno, STILL ya coulda been nicer about it. God, atleast be nice to em.

and dont give me that "I'm sick of dealing with this crud!!" and what not, if you're sick of it, dont post anything on it.

[Strip]

The word of advice is: Use the current bombers, DONT ask for a bomber that would totally ruin AH2

BS.....the B-29 would be perked.

Just like the Temp, 262, 234, Spit 14, F4U1-c and F4U-4. Which I might add do NOT "totally ruin AH2".

If you think we need plane gaps filled in.....fine I agree with you. Lets just not cloud the issue here. People let emotions play into disliking the B-29 and disregard its true merits. The B-29 belongs in the game more than the Niki, Ta 152, F4U-1C, WirbleWind, Osty, and a few other planes if you look at just numbers alone.

It has a rightful spot when the time comes.

Strip

[Rich46yo]

Take those stats and compare them to the B-17 or B-24, Throw in the JU-88 or HE-111 (Which NEEDS to be in the game LONG before the 29). Now tell me its a "big" contribution.  Other bombers are  far more urgently needed before we even contemplate adding the b-29.

These things pop up every few days it seems though. Noobs who just joined thinking they NEED the b-29. Let me give you all a word of advice. The Lancaster is your friend. The B-17/24/25/26 is your friend. Or if your like me and enjoy flying other non american/brit planes... The JU-88 or B5N are your friends. The JU-87 is your friend too... just more like a slow friend with a big boom. The word of advice is: Use the current bombers, DONT ask for a bomber that would totally ruin AH2

Gee thanks Relorian. Anything else we should know about what we should want or not want? What we "need" or dont need? Whats our "friend" and what isnt? While you still have time to post I mean.

And thanks for chirping in.

[JETBLST]

Why is it some models make the list an others don't.  What makes a WWII Aircraft worthy of being in AHII and other not.

The B-29 was a HUGE FACTOR in ending the war.  Hands down.  AS WAS the 17, 24, etc on and on.  I read almost all of the posts and no one (of course unless I missed it) has given a good reason not to have it other than they don't want it because they are fighter pilot snobs.

Fighters were in support of bombers, not bombers in support of fighters.  Keep that in mind.  Not that this should be a bomber game.  Not at all!  I love a good fight like anyone else.  I also like bombers too. 

We cannot have the 234C because it didnt make combat.  But we can't have a Combat bomber (B29) because it somehow is not appealing to the so called senior members?  WHAT EVER!  Like our 15 bucks are not as worthy?

The one reason I heard of is that the takeoff run of the 29 is longer than the airfields used in AHII.  Hitech is not going to remodel or come up with B29 bases.  Is that the reason?  I'd sure like to know that is the reason rather than an a cave in to furballers.  Either way lets have a real answer to this B29 question.  And no I didn't search for it. 

[C(Sea)Bass]

Very few people have said it should not be in the game. They are saying it should not be in the game RIGHT NOW. We don't need another American bomber especially a late war one. we have mor eimportant aircraft. We need another german bomber, at least 1 russian bomber, Judy, maybe an italian bomber, another british bomber, SB2C as well as a few other before the B29 can be considered.

[JETBLST]

                     "Yes" to the B-29. And I'll say it 82 times the reason being is I pay the same $ per month as you do and have as much right to say what I want as you do. Nor do I speak for "all the veteran players" who pay the same $ as the noobs do to play this game, and most of whom I'll bet could care less if the 29 was in the game.

                     The ones who "fly 38k on HQ missions at 0330 in the morning" are the highly ranked score guys who need a minimum of times in a bomber to get a high bomber rank for their overall ranks. And they can do all this already in Lancs and B-17s or 24s. So why would they risk perked B-29s? Go ahead and ask them cause the real bomber sticks are attacking front line targets with 4 cons on their tails already. Perked B-29s would have no more adverse affect on the game then perked 262s do.

                    You should learn to be more accepting of others and their opinions Moray. Cause as it stands now you just come across as a fool. Just because you dont fly bombers doesnt mean everyone who does should be content with what you deem is "enough".

RICH46!!!  He's my hero!      You hit the nail so on the head dude it's not even funny.  I posted another version in my B29 Question.  There are way too many folks out there who really do want the 29.  I think it's a shame these whiney so called senior players whine so much.  The poor guy is new to AHII and gets treated like he has the plague.  Might have even been his first post.  Says alot about the A ***** in this game.  To bad there are so many.

[JETBLST]

See?  Now that makes SENSE.  Not just a bunch of rhetoric.  Thank you!  I'd love to hear more!

Id gladly give up one of my B25 models for the B29 

[JETBLST]

Let me add my voice to the pro-B-29A group.

Mind you, we need other bombers first, Pe-2, Tu-2, G4M2, S.M.-79-II, He111, Wellington B.Mk III and Ju188 all stand out as higher priority to me.

But the idea that the B-29A should never be added is absurd.  It was a very important aircraft that saw heavy service and was produced in the thousands.  Of course it will need to be perked, and at arelatively high cost.  Of course it will not have a nuke as a load anymore, less in fact, than the Lancaster Mk III has the 22,000lb 'Grand Slam' as an option.  To constantly rebuff the B-29A request due to the nuke is ridiculous as they are 100% separate issues.


Some people claim the B-29A would need to be perked outrageously high, say 3,000 per plane or some such, because they say it would be nigh indestructible.  This is false.  It would be very survivable, for a bomber, but far from indestructable.  If used at medium or low altitude it could be easily destroyed by a Bf110 or Mosquito VI.  The Typhoon, La-7, Fw190D-9 and Bf109K-4 would all be effective against it at low and medium altitudes.  If the B-29A player spends the time to climb to high alt then the Ta152H and P-47N would both be effective.  Adding perk planes in, the Tempest and F4U-1C at low alt and the Spitfire Mk XIV at high alt, and the Me262 and Me163 at any alt would also be effective B-29A killers.  Remember, the B-29A has a wingloading of 80lbs/sq.ft. and is not at all a B-17 in agility at altitude.

Well Done.  I still say bombers, even the 24, are too vulnerable.  The pilots in World War II did not have hours and hours and hours and hours and hours and hours and hours to play online and become as skilled as the pilots here.  Many of them were attacking a bomber group for the first and (last) time.

So I think the models should reflect that.  Possibly autoguns for single bomber sticks with no gunners available.  Make those auto guns as treacherous as base or carrier ack.  Now lets see how much so called talent it takes to down a group of bombers.

[Rich46yo]

Not just that but here's another important point. The targets the AH B-29s would attack actually rebuild themselves on their own. And do so rather quickly.

A decent perk cost would also encourage more players to develop high altitude bombers skills, and, high altitude fighter intercepts. Im not against an extra bone being thrown to the guys who climb that high to take down 29s. I know eny controls perk points given but maybe somthing can be done for those fighter sticks who successfully intercept them. As in more perk points given to them.

Ive long wanted the game to become more strategic in general, especially concerning strat/industry targets. Eventually bringing in the 29 would go a ways towards doing that. Tho I would rather see the TU-2 come first.

We need another perk bomber for the bomber crowd. One is not enough.

[E25280]

My opinion has always been the difficulty and ramifications of the required modeling for the remote firing turrets.  Unlike the gunner positions on any other plane, the gunners (except the tail gunner) do not have a gun actually at their position. 

Why this matters . . .  If I am in the top turret of a B-24, the two guns at my position are firing at the object.  All other guns fire in that direction and converge at 600 yards IIRC.  In the event the bogie I am shooting at is very close (say 100 feet away), the two guns I am aiming at him from my actual position will hit him.  All the other guns are going to shoot around him and past him.  Same if he is far away (say, 1000 yards).  The shots converge at 600, then disperse all around the enemy . . . but the two guns at my position will still be aimed correctly and can ping him.  (The dispersion is a mixed blessing -- it can act as a shotgun making at least a few pings more likely, but I would hazard a guess that very few gunners if any actively try to hit planes with guns other than the two they are truly aiming.)

Take the B-29's remote turrets.  The gunners in the waist look through a bubble, and see that bogie 100 feet away.  With the current coding, the gunner puts his gunsight on the bogie and fires . . . and because he has no guns actually at his position, none of the bullets actually hit the target.  In other words, unless that plane is at convergence the gunner has to aim someplace other than the enemy plane to have any hope of hitting him.

Real life B-29 gunners had a simple computer that would change the convergence of the remote turrets based on the distance the gunner input.  In other words, he could set the turrets to converge on that target 100 yards, 500 yards, 1000 yards away, and the turrets would respond accordingly.  No such thing (yet) in AH.  And since we have the magically floating distance number above any enemy icon, gunners in AH with such a capability would decimate any attacking fighter quite easily.

Therefore, it is my opinion that the coding required to make the B-29's guns anything less than useless would actually be so imbalancing in favor of bombers (all bombers, because why would you NOT give other formations the same capability once an adjustable convergence is coded?), that the liklihood of it ever being introduced is small.

[Husky01]

Search?

[Arlo]

Id gladly give up one of my B25 models for the B29 

Which one of "your" B-25s do you want to sacrifice? Others may not be so inclined.  

[MORAY37]

BS.....the B-29 would be perked.

Just like the Temp, 262, 234, Spit 14, F4U1-c and F4U-4. Which I might add do NOT "totally ruin AH2".

If you think we need plane gaps filled in.....fine I agree with you. Lets just not cloud the issue here. People let emotions play into disliking the B-29 and disregard its true merits. The B-29 belongs in the game more than the Niki, Ta 152, F4U-1C, WirbleWind, Osty, and a few other planes if you look at just numbers alone.

It has a rightful spot when the time comes.

Strip

Ok... get the point here.  1 B29 would equal THREE B24's in bombload.  A formation of B29's = 60,000 lbs of ord.  Who is not going to take the 29?

3 B29's... at 30K at 358 mph.  There is no way you're intercepting them without jets.  One formation of B29's in this game flown by a good pilot could level 4 bases....In one flight.  The rest of the bomber set would become obsolete.  Now there's 20 or 30 formations of B29's flying around and destroying every base on the map....

The only way you let this plane in is if wind is enabled, full time, and the laser bombsights go away.  Even then, I would find it sad, only seeing B29's every hop I could lift.  As it is, there are already too many American planes in the set, and variants of,  at the cost of good rides that saw alot more action for other countries.