Jump to content
TheGreatDaltini

Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress

Would you like the B-17 in Battle of Bodenplatte?  

239 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the B-17 be added in Battle of Bodenplatte?



Recommended Posts

There are numerous posts about getting heavy bombers in the game... The dev's have said many times it is not going to happen. (sorry to rain on your parade mate, but there it is)...

  • Sad 2
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Should* it be in BoBp? I dunno.

 

Do I *want* it to be? Absolutely!

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure would be totally awesome.  I flew in a real one. Almost necessary at some future point. But who's going to build it, they have 375+ new planes and tanks already on tap. Haha

 

Check it out:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm3hLcYnPkU

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWfn6DEjpTQ

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYAyWk7ymT4

 

start up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s43M_ZM4XNM

Edited by katdog5
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Should* it be in BoBp? I dunno.

 

 

It 'should' be in, yes... there were two airfields on the Luftwaffe's target list that had them.

Just as Tiffy's, Mossies and Lancasters were at target airfields also... :)

But we have a pretty good cross section of aircraft for the battle though... and yes, it's a pity the dev's can't do them all  :o:

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure would be totally awesome.  I flew in a real one. Almost necessary at some future point. But who's going to build it, they have 375+ new planes and tanks already on tap. Haha

I flew in one as well. The yankee lady. It is a beautiful plane, but it never saw combat because its construction was finished like a week after the war ended 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I flew in one as well. The yankee lady. It is a beautiful plane, but it never saw combat because its construction was finished like a week after the war ended 

 

its nuts, I think they were producing something like 13 A DAY for almost year

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh joy, another totally pointless poll.

If it give some of us fun and gets a discussion going, is it doing any harm?

 

Regardless of whether the devs can do A or B its still nice to chat about it :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it give some of us fun and gets a discussion going, is it doing any harm?

 

Regardless of whether the devs can do A or B its still nice to chat about it :)

 

Harm? For a start, it encourages entirely unrealistic expectations, followed by inevitable disappointment and claims that 'the developers don't listen'. The B-17 isn't going to be in Bodenplatte. We already know this. The developers have announced the plane set. They have made clear umpteen times already that heavy bombers would require a tremendous amount of work, and that the game engine isn't currently capable of supporting them properly. And on a more general point, given that the developers have finite resources, any poll that asks 'should we have plane X' without adding 'instead of plane Y' isn't asking a sensible question. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harm? For a start, it encourages entirely unrealistic expectations, followed by inevitable disappointment and claims that 'the developers don't listen'. The B-17 isn't going to be in Bodenplatte. We already know this. The developers have announced the plane set. They have made clear umpteen times already that heavy bombers would require a tremendous amount of work, and that the game engine isn't currently capable of supporting them properly. And on a more general point, given that the developers have finite resources, any poll that asks 'should we have plane X' without adding 'instead of plane Y' isn't asking a sensible question. 

 Surely that's what moderators are for?

 

I'm certainly not going to *demand* the devs do anything from a discussion.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harm? For a start, it encourages entirely unrealistic expectations, followed by inevitable disappointment and claims that 'the developers don't listen'. The B-17 isn't going to be in Bodenplatte. We already know this. The developers have announced the plane set. They have made clear umpteen times already that heavy bombers would require a tremendous amount of work, and that the game engine isn't currently capable of supporting them properly. And on a more general point, given that the developers have finite resources, any poll that asks 'should we have plane X' without adding 'instead of plane Y' isn't asking a sensible question. 

So let me ask you a question. Do you have a dream car? Almost everyone has one. Do you know why it is called a "Dream" car? Because it is a dream and will you most likely never get it. This is basically the same thing. I know the B-17 will never be added but it would be very cool if it was and it makes for good conversation. Lastly I am not going to be mad at the devs if they don't add the B-17. I am proud of them anyway. They have been pushing out amazing stuff in a very short period of time. How could anyone be mad about that?

Edited by [GF]TheGreatDaltini

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could it be added? Sure, most likely ai only though.

 

Does it fit into BoBP? No. We can't talk B-17 if we don't have strategic targets which is sth yet to be revealed (cities alone won't suffice because terror bombing is sth devs don't want to recreate). Also you don't have historical airfields to take off from which leaves the choice of pickign way to close airfields or air spawns. Personally, I'm against both.

 

There are more cool aircraft we hopefully will see in future that are not as complicated and difficult to create as the B-17.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let me ask you a question. Do you have a dream car? Almost everyone has one. Do you know why it is called a "Dream" car? Because it is a dream and will most likely never happen. This is basically the same thing. I know the B-17 will never be added but it would be very cool if it was and it makes for good conversation. Lastly I am not going to be mad at the devs if they don't add the B-17. I am proud of them anyway. They have been pushing out amazing stuff in a very short period of time. How could anyone be mad about that?

 

This isn't a 'dream car' question though. It is a poll. On whether the developers 'should' do something. That isn't how commercial games development works. We are customers. Not shareholders. Not an electorate. We don't get to tell them what they 'should' do. Far too much discussion on this forum (and on games forums in general for that matter) is based around the premise that when you buy a game, you are somehow entitled to a say in future development. You really aren't. Sure, the developers may sometimes be interested in what we have to say. They may ask specific questions themselves. When they do, answer them. And feel free to make the occasional suggestion too. If it hasn't already been made umpteen times before. And if it hasn't already been responded to. We already know how this 'poll' will go. It will get more 'yes' than 'no' votes. Like every other 'should we have X' poll before. It will tell the developers nothing that they didn't already know.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then, if one has an issue with the poll title, PM/post the OP and ask em to alter it.

 

Failing that seek moderator assistance.

 

I *see* your point but I feel (rightly or wrongly) that you are investing to much into what is essentially a smeall issue :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should there be a B-17?

 

I'm going to say no.

 

Not because I think it would take ages (although it would) or because I'd rather see something else instead, but because it doesn't work, it doesn't fit the sim world we have.

 

BoX is a tactical air war simulation, where it's possible to fly from one end of the map to the other with only a 50% fuel load in a bomber, where close air support is key and where most combat takes place below 15,000ft.

 

It suits the Eastern Front which was much lower and flatter than the West, and the Western theatre were getting was also a very tactical operation.

The plane set reflects this. Sure, there's a P-51 and a 109K/190D but aside from that there are short-ranged fighters and tactical fighter-bombers.

 

The B-17 doesn't fit in this at all. There won't be a south of England to take off from and there's no central Germany to fly to.

There won't be enough space in missions or servers to have 50+ bombers in formation with all the attendant fighters taking on a swarm of LW interceptors.

There's no real utility for the B-17 in Bodenplatte either, unless the plan is to climb for hours to reach 30k feet to bomb a factory behind the lines, by which time the match is over.

 

No airstarts. And I wouldn't be keen on seeing people take off near the front lines and jump over hedges to bomb an enemy supply column.

Not for a sim which aims for realism.

 

Also the current draw distance for target objects is only 10km... roughly 30,000 feet. So from a useful operating altitude you'll be having to guess where the target is because it won't become visible in the bomb sight until after the release point.

 

I'm also not convinced it would sell well enough to justify the expense of making it.

 

The devs are doing a great job making this a solid tactical war sim. BoX as it stands cannot support a strategic campaign style of playing and adding these assets wouldn't suit what we have.

The model for future development is getting even more tactically-focused as well with the addition of tanks. The maps will get more detailed to support this and gameplay may end up with a stronger emphasis on close air support and interdiction.

Going strategic at this point would be to throw the brakes on and take a 90-degree left-turn and include an orphaned asset that doesn't match the surroundings, DCS-style.

 

Putting a B-17 in to BoX would be to the detriment of the whole experience.

 

In ten years time when the Il-2 Great Battles series is a bestselling AAA title then yeah, it would be awesome.

But now I think we should be sticking with what we've got and pushing it as far as it can go, before thinking about a change of pace entirely.

 

BoX is still missing elements that would make it a comprehensive tactical war sim. Better to finish it off rather than jumping into a half-baked attempt to do something different.

 

 

TL;DR: nah, sorry.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you would go to about 22k ft., not 30k. But the issues are the same. To make the B17 a realistic experience you‘d need to be able to fly to Tunis (preferably via Regensburg) and you need to have dynamic weather and athmosphere.

 

All far outside the scope of what this sim currently is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bodenplatte was more of a tactical battle, which is why it makes sense that we’re getting fighters and fighter-bombers. A B-17 would be better suited to a more strategic expansion where it can engage the targets it was historically used against.

Edited by FFS_Cybermat47

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would absolutely adore a B-17 in a sim with such high attention to detail as IL-2. I have, after all, flown in one myself and it would be a joy to " be in it again " with IL-2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about we settle for a Mosquito? :cool:

 

 

Now you are talking!

No 3 point touch down there!

Edited by Trooper117

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would I like a B-17 - sure. But lets be realistic about the effort required to actually get one in game and whether it would suit the current game engine limitations.

I'm still going to vote no on this poll.

 

When the time comes for the B-17, you can bet they are going to do it right, not some half arsed rushed implementation. I'm sure they know when that time should be, but as part of the BoBP expansion, nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a target at the airfields I'd say yes, parked and with a damage model, but non flyable... but not as a crewable, flyable aircraft, for all the reasons that have been made in the countless posts already on this and any other 'heavy'...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not going to happen the best we can expect is a flyable B-25 possibly sometime after Bodenplatte is released.

 

In the last Q&A on Ts Jason stated something like "Il-2 is a tactical air combat sim as opposed to a strategic one".

I think he meant that the maps would be too small to be able to simulate actual strategic bombing for that purpose you would need a huge map of Western Europe with B-17s taking off from England to go bomb deep in German territory.

 

So I wouldn't expect it...

Edited by =FEW=Hauggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think as an AI, the B-17 would be an asset to the sim even now. Perhaps the third party team that has been mentioned will at some point be allowed to tackle a project like that.

 

The Mosquito, both fighter and bomber versions, would be an incredible A/C to have introduced to this series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's not going to happen, nor should it - so while a conversation is harmless, it's also utterly repetitive and pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not going to happen, nor should it - so while a conversation is harmless, it's also utterly repetitive and pointless.

Not for those who haven't discussed it before :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no and thrice no. Not while so many aircraft from the specific scenarios we do have are still missing, and then not even after that. Who's going to fly it? There are people posting on these forums that autolevel to go off and look at Facebook during a 20-minute flight. Can you really imagine someone here doing an 8-hour flight? Ok, yes, I would, but then I'm odd. :o:  The Luftie fighter jocks would love it though - have dinner, pop up to altitude and spoil your day, then back home for tea. :P

Edited by 216th_Cat
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not for those who haven't discussed it before :)

 

Harmless but still pointless as a simple search on this forum yields all the info needed - no need to re-hash it constantly.

 

In theory I see value in an AI version since they don't need to land or take-off.

It would still need the same complex damage model however, thus take considerable time/money which again makes in impractical for the time being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You just cannot have a air battle on the Western Theater of Operation that takes place in 1944 without the B-17G - sorry! The P-51D and the B-17G go hand in hand! Can't have one without the other - Since the main reason we have the P-51D is because of the B-17

Edited by JG7_X_Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You just cannot have a air battle on the Western Theater of Operation that takes place in 1944 without the B-17G - sorry! The P-51D and the B-17G go hand in hand! Can't have one without the other - Since the main reason we have the P-51D is because of the B-17

 

Eh...no.

This is a tactical map A.....not a strategic map.

B - there were several groups in the 9th Air Force that operated Mustangs in the ground attack role, and the 9th 'borrowed' squadrons from the 8th Air Force fighter groups (such as the 352nd) to assist in operations during the time-frame in question.

They did escort bombers as well during this period, but it wasn't their predominant roll necessarily - at least no the fighters stationed in Belgium/Germany.

 

Books are handy little items.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You just cannot have a air battle on the Western Theater of Operation that takes place in 1944 without the B-17G - sorry! The P-51D and the B-17G go hand in hand! Can't have one without the other - Since the main reason we have the P-51D is because of the B-17

The Western Front wasn’t just strategic bombers. Air support for ground troops was just as important there as it was on the Eastern Front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant imagine anything else than remake of Microprose "B-17 Mighty Eight". Purely single player,story driven RPG with a mix of aircraft simulation. Trying to push it into multiplayer real-time full simulation would be a basket case right from the begining.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That POS wouldn't run worth a damn for me.

I uninstalled it after a few hours and that was that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Western Front wasn’t just strategic bombers. Air support for ground troops was just as important there as it was on the Eastern Front.

 

You are correct it wasn't ...until the USAAF 8th AF joined the party in 1942 and up to June 6th 1944 anyway ;) - My argument is that the primary role of the P-51D was escort, granted they were given the OK to free hunt from time to time. The Mustang was a liquid cooled engine like the Me 109, so "yes" it could drop bombs but it was more vulnerable to ground fire than the Thunderbolt for example so CAS was not necessarily it's primary role.

 

So if you are going to put the P-51D in a game, it should be doing it's primary mission - which is escorting the B-17s and B-24s.

 

Just because Stephen Spielberg had them saving "Private Ryan" doesn't mean that's how they were predominately used.

Edited by JG7_X_Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh...no.

This is a tactical map A.....not a strategic map.

B - there were several groups in the 9th Air Force that operated Mustangs in the ground attack role, and the 9th 'borrowed' squadrons from the 8th Air Force fighter groups (such as the 352nd) to assist in operations during the time-frame in question.

They did escort bombers as well during this period, but it wasn't their predominant roll necessarily - at least no the fighters stationed in Belgium/Germany.

 

Books are handy little items.

 

Operation Bodenplatte was a strategic mission - the goal was for the Luftwaffe to gain air superiority (...be it only until allies brought up replacements) by destroying as many allied aircraft (B-17s too) on the ground and in the air. According to Donald L. Caldwell in his JG26 Top Guns of the Luftwaffe the battle did more harm to the Luftwaffe with bad weather and friendly fire to say the least. You should read Six Months to Oblivion - that will give you a better idea of what went down on the WTO air war in early '45

 

Tactics and strategy are not determined by a map but by the missions objective - short-term vs long-term impact on the war. Example: bombing a column of enemy tanks on a battlefield to prevent them from taking a town- tactical. Bombing the exact same tank column because Rommel himself is in the lead tank - strategic.

 

The Blue Nosed Bastard were assigned CAS during the later part of the war but that's the Luftwaffe wasn't much of a fighting force by then and all those pilots and planes needed something to do. The idea is the primary mission of the P-51 was escort and dogfight other fighters - which is why is has the most kills of all US fighters. This is what an air combat simulator would want to simulate - primary role of an "AIRCRAFT" not a secondary role of an aircraft and a primary role of a single "unit".

 

You are correct - books are a very handy item. The 487th FS took part in Operation Bodenplatte as they were stationed in  Asch Belgium at the time (known as Y-29), maybe you so read about the legend of Y-29.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion (..which may be wrong) the Russian front was CAS dominate because tanks (on both sides) played a much great role (just like North Africa) than on the WTO. This meant aerial combat took place at much lower altitudes (just like North Africa) with more aircraft (... now this was unique to the Russian front), which is why the Luftwaffe racked up so many kills on the Russian front. It was a target rich environment and the Russians committed a lot of aircraft and opportunists  like Erich Hartmann perched above the Frey and had a field day.

 

The Wehrmacht on the other hand on the WTO by Jan 1 1945 like the Russian front was on the retreat (The Battle of the Bulge was unsuccessful) and into Ruhr and central Germany and there was no Luftwaffe to provide constant cover for the ground forces so there were no low altitude battles like the Russian front. This is why aircraft like the P-51 could strafe ground targets, because they attacked targets of opportunity with little or at times no high caliber defensive armament. I cannot stress enough that the P-51 was as vulnerable to small arms fire as a Bf 109.

 

I think the 777 guys are trying to use the same aerial hypothesis with Operation Bodenplatte that was used on the Russian front and that in my humble opinion is incorrect. Remember guys -  Operation Bodenplatte only lasted a hours.

 

I know some people here like ground pounding - but read these books that talk about the late war in the west, what's JG26, JG2, JG4, JG53, JG301, JV44, JG11, JG7 & etc... read what they were doing! They were getting decimated trying to bring down bombers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×