Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

26 Excellent

About AndytotheD

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

183 profile views
  1. we’ve had this discussion before, the G-10 actually turned out to be an absolute mess of different fuselage, wing and potentially engine combinations. Even if the name is not historically accurate, it well and truly deserved the moniker “bastard aircraft of the Erla factory”.
  2. Boyd's Aerial Attack Study has had the single greatest impact on my flying since I've been playing combat flight simulators. Even if you don't want to sit down and read the technical minutiae, the diagrams speak volumes.
  3. Probably about 380ish maximum speed. Not bad, but not nearly as fast as the pure bomber variants, which had the benefit of two stage merlins and the resultant high-altitude performance.
  4. I'm not saying it is a good reason. I just don't think that single tragedy shouldn't be used to decide their inclusion. I listed plenty of other operations where they were used in a tactical role, and plenty of strategic operations (Crossbow targets) that not only the strategic bombers took part in, but also our tactical fighters. Operations which will be simulated if the plane list for Normandy is accurate.
  5. "This kind of contentious use of airpower lingers around heavy bombers...a very good one, if not the best". "The unnecessary obliteration of Caen & almost all of it's civilian population..." Maybe I am putting words in your mouth but its awfully easy to infer.
  6. Those were the engagements I'm thinking of. You may be the first person I've met who considers the moral implications of strategic bombers in a combat flight simulator. I certainly haven't, so in that regard I commend you. However, please consider the following: Normandy will be simulating the V-1 offensive, a very deliberate terror bombardment campaign. If we want to be especially contentious, there will be players on the German side who are going to be flying in support of these operations. Maybe not as an assigned mission set, but it's not hard to imagine what kind of target the flight of B-25/26/recon planes you've been sent to intercept is trying to reach if you're over northwestern France. Speaking of the V-1 offensive, there are a variety of Operation Crossbow targets inside the map boundary that received attention from USAAF and RAF strategic bombers on numerous occasions (not limited to the tactical fighter action we will probably see against the bombs in the air and on the ground), that also don't involve razing a city. I consider this operation (including the tactical strikes and air defense against it) more of a strategic campaign then I do tactical, but it's being simulated all the same. The usage of strategic bombers here shouldn't be contentious. In regards to Caen, my research may be off, but I believe that was one of the few times a city was the target during one of the aforementioned operations. Indeed, it was razed by accident, the bombers were supposed to hit defenses outside the city, and the other bombing operations hit areas outside of towns (such as in Cobra or Goodwood) Ultimately, my want for strategic bombers is not from any blood lust for collateral damage, its for historical accuracy. We're finally in a theater that regularly included both strategic bombers and tactical fighter bombers on the same operations, and saying its a "tactical air war simulator" as an excuse doesn't fly anymore.
  7. With Normandy you’ll find that strategic bombers were very involved in the tactical engagements on the ground. It’s a shame the engine can’t handle it cause it would be fantastic to see at the least. CLOD seems to handle large bomber formations, with flak and fighters well. However, we’ll see if it remains that way after TF5.0 comes out. If it does it might be worth looking at what they did differently.
  8. Ours is a fighter bomber, with machine guns and cannon where a bombardier/navigator would sit.
  9. On an unrelated note, if the P-51B/C gets the Mustang III treatment with 150 octane fuel it will be faster than the Tempest on the deck. I, for one, am very excited to see that.
  10. Oh darn, I hadn’t seen that it was actually gone. Good eye.
  11. The lever is there though? You can see it in the throttle quadrant. In addition, it works, it’s just on or off. You don’t get to control it in game. My understanding was that there was no fine control of mixture through this lever, the carb handled that, so when you started the engine you simply threw the lever into “run” and left it there until you turned the engine off.
  12. Oh no, I’m in agreement. If it saw operational service and there’s data to be found on it then it is nice to have in game.
  13. If this were Facebook, I'd advocate you for a "top fan" badge.
  14. Hah, I can certainly believe that. Hell, even the Dora takes a while to run them down that high.
  • Create New...