Jump to content
TheGreatDaltini

Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress

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

224 members have voted

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



Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Hueyman said:

You are in your own world assuming it’s tactical. It’s not currently

 

Practically the entire air war on the Eastern Front was a tactical air war.

 

Oh, and it's the 9th Tactical Air Force and the 2nd Tactical Air Force being simulated, among other things, in Bodenplatte - not the 9th Strategic Air Force or the 2nd Strategic Air Force. :) 

Edited by LukeFF
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Hueyman said:

You are in your own world assuming it’s tactical. It’s not currently, that does’t mean it won’t ever be.

 

...and yet it is.

Someone is in their own world, not sure it's Pooch.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asked and answered Your Honor.........................

 

Need the Pacific or Italy. These arguments are in their fifth or sixth (or more) installment now.

Edited by II/JG17_HerrMurf
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edited my post, I ommited «  it’s not STRATEGIC yet. »

 

Doesn’t change my mind dudes, and the fact that you and I won’t ever be on the same position.

 

Remind me this day in the coming 5 years, when I’ll lead a 50+ Fort formation heading to Schweinfurt ( yeah I know, they were closer to 1000 + ), of all of you thinking we’ll dogfight and strafe forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Nobody said „Oh, let‘s make a tactical combat sim and never, never do anything beyond that!“

It is „tactical“ because it is they can do currently. Small maps and few aircraft at the time. If you have to make a story then, then „it‘s tactical“. The minute the sim can provide for more aircraft and continent sized „maps“, you get your bombers. For the simple reason that people will buy them.

And that's another sim. Another sim. It's way down the line. Years, probably. We AREN'T getting heavy bombers for BODENPLATTE. THAT'S what the poster asked. I don't know if everyone is just thick or being argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative. They are following a tactical air war story line for now. No B-17's! 

I have another idea for a poll.

How long before the B-17 topic comes up again: *One Month

                                                                                        *Two Weeks

                                                                                        *One Week

                                                                                        *Tomorrow

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hueyman said:

 

Remind me this day in the coming 5 years, when I’ll lead a 50+ Fort formation heading to Schweinfurt ( yeah I know, they were closer to 1000 + ), of all of you thinking we’ll dogfight and strafe forever.

 

Maybe in 5 years some programmer will have a brilliant insight that will make that possible.  But right now it isn’t possible.  So it’s probably better for you to stop pretending otherwise.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Poochnboo said:

And that's another sim. Another sim. It's way down the line. Years, probably. We AREN'T getting heavy bombers for BODENPLATTE. THAT'S what the poster asked. I don't know if everyone is just thick or being argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative. They are following a tactical air war story line for now. No B-17's! 

I have another idea for a poll.

How long before the B-17 topic comes up again: *One Month

                                                                                        *Two Weeks

                                                                                        *One Week

                                                                                        *Tomorrow

This would be a better thread imo. 🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Poochnboo said:

It's way down the line. Years, probably. 

Years, absolutely. And only if all works out well. For the Bodenplatte „add-on“, absolutely not.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hueyman said:

Edited my post, I ommited «  it’s not STRATEGIC yet. »

 

Doesn’t change my mind dudes, and the fact that you and I won’t ever be on the same position.

 

Remind me this day in the coming 5 years, when I’ll lead a 50+ Fort formation heading to Schweinfurt ( yeah I know, they were closer to 1000 + ), of all of you thinking we’ll dogfight and strafe forever.

 

So which day exactly would you like to be reminded of this post?

Let's nail it down.

 

Alternatively, you might want to do a little reading on what the Dev's have said on the matter.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hueyman said:

Remind me this day in the coming 5 years, when I’ll lead a 50+ Fort formation heading to Schweinfurt ( yeah I know, they were closer to 1000 + ), of all of you thinking we’ll dogfight and strafe forever.

 

Dogfight and strafe forever?

 

Sorry, did you miss the fact that we have the He-111, Ju-88, Pe-2, and A-20 in the game already?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I don’t care what you think, I just made my statements, as you made yours. I respect yours while I do not agree with it and I do not want to change your minds or make you think like I do, so please do the same.

 

Even though I have to admit the OP talks about Bodenplatte, I disgressed on the overall IL-2 picture.

 

82C7C28E-C266-453E-A10F-192A21EEC913.thumb.jpeg.8ae4ad3479f9c3a968925316bd22ec64.jpeg

 

I almost exclusively fly Bombers so yes I’m aware of those, Cyber. That’s why as Maverick, I feel the need... the need to fly Fortresses after doing nice and good boyy action with those small Bomb trucks.

 

Time will tell, and I know what creators said. Still I know at some point we’ll have it, no need to spend sweat and fill the forums to show your logical reasonning to prove the contrary. But it’s democracy so we’re free to say whatever we want.

 

 

DCBAB9FC-1FAD-424C-B3AE-06B3C3DC5C01.thumb.jpeg.a440f073b3f423a33f7fcf7d51640e01.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hueyman said:

Still I know at some point we’ll have it, no need to spend sweat and fill the forums to show your logical reasonning to prove the contrary. 

 

:rolleyes:

 

No-one is saying that we’ll never have it. No-one is saying that they don’t want to have it. In fact, I’d say that most people would love to be able to fly a B-17. So relax, no use arguing with people who agree with you and share your passion for the B-17.

 

All anyone has said is that it’s physically impossible to have it at the moment due to software limitations in the game, and that it’s not suitable for BoBP.

 

You want to fly B-17s to Schweinfurt? So do I. But neither Schweinfurt or the 8th Air Force’s bases in England are going to be on the BoBP map, so adding the B-17 now would be pointless.

 

It’s like making a game where you can fly a Huey, but with no Vietnam map.

Edited by PB_Cybermat47
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the obsession with B-17's? Weren't there lots more B-24's?

 

And what's so exciting about flying an airliner in a straight line at 30,000 ft, to carry a bomb load only the same size as a Mosquito could?

 

I prefer to play the Mossie's mission profile everytime tbh.

 

And I'm pretty sure the devs are as bored of polls on this topic as i am. ;) 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Diggun said:

And I'm pretty sure the devs are as bored of polls on this topic as i am. ;) 

I doubt the developers do much more than give these a quick glance if even that. No kittens are harmed by these polls or threads. They're just a wish and a hope by someone As the thread title has B-17 in it, it's pretty easy to avoid reading if it is a bothersome topic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Diggun said:

Why the obsession with B-17's? Weren't there lots more B-24's?

 

Well, the B-17 is a lot more iconic. Though I think that the B-17 was more common (but that could just be because it gets more attention).

 

34 minutes ago, Diggun said:

And what's so exciting about flying an airliner in a straight line at 30,000 ft, to carry a bomb load only the same size as a Mosquito could?

 

Being on an aircraft bristling with guns, in formation with hundreds of others, with massive dogfights breaking out within the formation itself... I reckon that would make for some damn fine gameplay.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, PB_Cybermat47 said:

It’s like making a game where you can fly a Huey, but with no Vietnam map.

Who ever would do tha.......oh wait, that's right. They did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B-17 vs B-24 is a bit like P-51 vs P-47.

 

The B-17/ P-51 are more iconic (and arguably more sexy), yet the B-24/ P-47 did more for the gross war-effort.

 

While the B-24 saved countless shis by patrolling the Atlantic and spotting/ sinking U-Boats, the P-47 saved countless troops by digging through the german supply lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The B-24 was produced in larger numbers than any other American plane in aviation history. Over 18,000 of them. And more P-47's were built than any other U.S. fighter. Well over 15,000 units. 

Yeah, sexy might be a reason. The Mustang and Forts were more photogenic. I'll give 'em that. But, there was a saying during the war that went like this: "If you want to get the girl, fly a P-51. If you want to get HOME to your girl. Fly a P-47."

And the B-17 could take more damage than a Liberator. And it was easier to fly in formation. A B-24 wore you out. But the Lib flew faster, farther, higher and carried a larger bomb load. That's why it was the chosen heavy bomber for those long missions over the far flung Pacific battlefield. And while the P-51 couldn't be used in the Pacific until they were able to utilize the hard service runways at Clark Field in the Phillipines....the P-47 had already been flying missions out of those dirt and coral runways on New Guinea for over a year.

But, all were great airplanes! And the debates about then will go on forever. I hope so, anyway. I don't want them, or their pilots, to ever be forgotten. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Poochnboo said:

But the Lib flew faster, farther, higher and carried a larger bomb load.

Is that so? Higher? I remember the saying of B-17 crews that the B-24 was the best escort they could ask for because they would fly below their formations.

 

Also Wiki states ceiling of the B-17 at 11+km altitude, the one of the B-24 at 9+km altitude. You have different info on that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Poochnboo said:

And while the P-51 couldn't be used in the Pacific until they were able to utilize the hard service runways at Clark Field in the Phillipines....the P-47 had already been flying missions out of those dirt and coral runways on New Guinea for over a year.

 

What prevented P-51 operations from those runways?

I'd hazard a guess that the 51 simply had "Europe First"-priority. Probably because at the time it's range was more beneficial in Europe* than in the Pacific. Also, the P-38 had enough of a performance-edge over the japanese fighters and didn't suffer from short legs either.

 

9 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Also Wiki states ceiling of the B-17 at 11+km altitude, the one of the B-24 at 9+km altitude. You have different info on that?

 

All bombed up, those figures are academic at best anyway.

The 24 also was a pig in icing conditions - the thick wing turning into a popsicle in no time.

 

____

* Iwo to Tokyo wasn't a thing yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Diggun said:

Why the obsession with B-17's? Weren't there lots more B-24's?

Yep, much more B-24s.

 

Around

12,000 B-17s

vs

18,000 B-24s.

 

B-24s did a great deal of the work but never get the credit they are due, similar to the P-47 and P-38 vs the P-51.

I've read it had alot to do with the news reporters, they liked the look of the B-17 and flew with it more so the B-17 got more press.

 

Also, the durability of the B-17 vs B-24 is largely dependent on the aircraft you flew, each crew preferred their aircraft.  Both bombers were very durable and could take immense damage, though the B-24 did have a tendency to catch fire from what I've read.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

All bombed up, those figures are academic at best anyway.

The 24 also was a pig in icing conditions - the thick wing turning into a popsicle in no time.

I would have guessed that you don‘t fly the aircraft at these altitudes. But AFAIR the B-24 were operating at roughly 5.5 km altitude and the B-17 at roughly 6 km altitude on bombing missions.

 

But about the icing, the B-24 does have an anti icing system for the wing. Air heated by the exhaust would be used to heat the wings (and crew etc.).

 

Why was it so bad? AFAIK thick wing profiles suffer les from icing than thin wings (just as a trend). Did the anti ice system not work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, just when I hit "post" I remembered, that ice usually accretes on thin wing-sections first (tailplane, struts, etc.).

 

The internet is pretty sparse on specifics. It seems, though, that the Davis wing suffered from being an early laminar-flow design (by accident), having critical lift/drag property-changes when a little contamination is added.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that the  B-24 wing was any no more prone to icing than any other, but the effect on performance was much greater, due to the high aspect ratio laminar flow wing. So even small amounts of ice would dramatically increase drag and reduce lift. They used to say, "The Davis Wing won't hold enough ice to chill your drink." The Davis wing was beautiful, and it's thinner profile helped make it faster than the Forts. But it created some problems that the B-17 didn't experience. The higher wing loading, for instance, made it more difficult to fly. Especially at slow speeds. 

6 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Also Wiki states ceiling of the B-17 at 11+km altitude, the one of the B-24 at 9+km altitude. You have different info on that?

 

Yeah, I got carried away with the whole, 'Bigger, faster, farther...."  thing and couldn't stop in  time.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the question asked by the op is "Should the B-17 be added in Battle of Bodenplatte?", I voted 'no'.
I don't have anything against the B-17 or any other heavy bomber being added to the series at some point in the future if the devs find a way to make it possible but I don't feel it should be added to BoBP specifically (if it were even possible) because:

- Map limitations.

- Flying/crewing a heavy bomber isn't something that interests me personally.

- Dev's time/resources (especially if the heavy is flyable), the amount of time that the devs would spend on a heavy could be used to make several smaller aircraft instead that would be also be a better fit to the tactical nature of the BoBP expansion... the medium bombers, for example, would at least provide something for the bomber fans to play with.

- I fully realize that the majority of those answering this poll have said 'yes', but I can't help but wonder if a B-17 would be popular enough to warrant the effort by the devs? I say this because, so far as I could tell, when flyable heavies were added to the old game (both stock and modded) there were some enthusiasts of course yet I don't recall seeing any spike in the number of user made missions/campaigns in which one could fly those heavies, so I wonder if it would be the same story here?

HB

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course we will get a B17! Jason said he wanted to add a lot more planes so he practically promised! 

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2018 at 10:06 AM, TheGreatDaltini said:

Yeah, its crazy that over 12000 were made but only 47 can still fly

Thats nothing, 33,000+ 109s were built and only a handful can fly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imo the 17 should be there at least as an AI.

I'm almost certain it will never be a flyable plane, but perhaps we'll see a Marauder.

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

×