Jump to content
TheGreatDaltini

Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress

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

255 members have voted

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



Recommended Posts

...

I think the 777 guys are trying to use the same aerial hypothesis with Operation Bodenplatte that was used on the Russian front...

 

I don't think they are using any 'hypothesis' at all beyond looking for a late-war western front scenario which the game engine is capable of modelling. They have said they can't currently model B-17s properly, and that remains true regardless of what some customers would prefer. Maybe at some point in the distant future things might change, but they have to work with what they've got.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Operation Bodenplatte was a strategic mission

Yes on the part of the Germans it was - the Allied response that day was not.

 

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 Yes thank you, but I'm very well read up on this professor.

 

Tactics and strategy are not determined by a map.but by the missions objective - short-term vs long-term impact on the war.

No, for our purposes they are determined by the size of the available map, and the aircraft available for said map. That we're talking about the flight sim and not the actual war seems

somehow lost on you. Not a person here, let alone me thinks that real life generals were limited by map size and having conversations like "well Don, with respect, we can't use our heavies on that target, you see...it's a tactical map"

Nuff said on that.

 

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".

 

Not even close. This air combat simulator 'wants' to simulate exactly what the developer says it will simulate, and what that developer has decided is that it will simulate TACTICAL operations in Belgium and Germany during the later

war period around New Years 1945, NOT a single day in 1945. That most Mustangs squadron served in the escort roll is neither here no there. That fact that A, the the 9th TAC (that stands for 9th TACTICAL Air Command) employed several Mustang

groups is however important, and that B, the 9th borrowed some Mustang groups from the 8th, or elements from those groups is also important in the context of this next chapter of the sim.

 

Context dude....context. Going on about tactics vs strategy in the real war...again we're talking about what can be simulated on our computer and what can be created

with the resources available. It's been stated multiple times, in multiple threads, over years that no STRATEGIC heavy operations will be simulated in the foreseeable future.

 

 

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.

 

Way ahead of you, having interviewed a number of the living 352nd pilots 3 or 4 times each some years ago for my own book project. Including Bob Powell, Don Bryan, Don McKibben, James Wood,

Alden Rigby and Walter Starck (also Bud Anderson). Not to mention having the long out of print squadron history published by the squadron and Bluenoser Tales, also published by the squadron.

 

I suggest you read Hell Hawks, which details the exploits of the 365th FG, under the 9th TAC (yes once again, an entire air force command dedicated to TACTICAL operations) and get a feel for how many German fighters were encountered and scrapped with

during those low level CAS missions by those P-47;s. You can also find "Leap Off" history of the 404th online and do the same. Also Winged Victory which details the TACTICAL operations of the 9th TAC under General Quesada in Normandy.

 

 

Edited by Gambit21
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they are using any 'hypothesis' at all beyond looking for a late-war western front scenario which the game engine is capable of modelling. They have said they can't currently model B-17s properly, and that remains true regardless of what some customers would prefer. Maybe at some point in the distant future things might change, but they have to work with what they've got.

 

Interesting I didn't know that was an actual reason behind the B-17 not being modeled.

 

Thanks for the info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting I didn't know that was an actual reason behind the B-17 not being modeled.

 

Thanks for the info.

[insert meme about using the dang forum search functionality here]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is any, the most likely chance for B-17s in this game: Early war (until mid 1943) Papua New Guinea and Midway.

Small formations, lower altitude, shorter ranged missions.

Still unlikely, though interesting. Way more than anything 8th AF-related to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[insert meme about using the dang forum search functionality here]

 

This is a poll - and I gave my opinion.

 

[insert meme about knowing when someone has thrown you a bone, thus ending the argument here] 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a poll - and I gave my opinion.

 

[insert meme about knowing when someone has thrown you a bone, thus ending the argument here] 

 

Yeah, my mistake. I thought it was you that started the poll. Just poking fun, in any case- quite a few threads on this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

[insert meme about using the dang forum search functionality here]

 

I've actually rarely found it that useful and have to resort to google....so I wouldn't recommend that anyway....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, my mistake. I thought it was you that started the poll. Just poking fun, in any case- quite a few threads on this topic.

 

Takes a true man to admit when he is wrong! You can be my wingman anyday!  Diddy-Diddly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted "no" - reminding that the question was if it should be included in BoBP 

 

So no, not in BoBP - At a later point, then yes, definitely, I'd sure hope for it - But BoBP is a no-go, not only because the devs already said they weren't adding heavies to that release, I also really think a B-17 is a plane of such legendary repute that it absolutely must be done right, or best left as AI only until that becomes possible. 

 

There'd be a riot here if a half-quality compromise Fortress turned up.  And such a complex aircraft is no easy thing to make, especially not at the same time as the promised BoPB fleet, which is to almost double the number of options currently available in the game.  That's why I agree with the sensible decision by the devs to stay away from heavies at this point in development.

 

That is not to say they shouldn't revisit the concept at a later date.  But well, would that be more desirable than carrier action in the Pacific?  Who am I to say?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A-26 Invader would be better for this scenario imho. They were used during the Battle of the Bulge to attack German supply lines so they were present at that area in January 45.

 

Devs have already said that player controlled four-engined bombers are not possible to be made.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BorysVorobyov said:

First we need a TB3 to launch I16s from.

That and Seaguls (I-153).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2018 at 2:14 PM, Royal_Flight said:

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.

I wanted a b-17 but after i’ve read these solid facts i’m 100% convinced . B-17 will ruin il-2

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree on all points BlackRaven makes. IMHO it makes more sense, if they would want to expand the european theatre, to concentrate on tactical bombers. There were a whole lot of them used on both sides. And then there are still lots of battles in the 1943-45 time frame on the eastern front which make for good modules. Citadel, Bagration etc.

 

Intercepting bomber streams over Regensburg is beyond what seems to be sensible both for the game engine and from a commercial point of view.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should it be included? Yes imo.

 

There are plenty of arguments against having a heavy bomber in-game but most are just excuses for not having one.

 

Examples:

-The map is too small: No it's not, you could always have the bombers start on the edges of the map and some bombing runs in ww2 didnt span 1000+ miles (raids over Normandy were just flying a "short" distance across the channel.)

 

-The visibility is to low so bombers wont be able to fly 30k feet. They dont have to, 15-20k feet is plenty high and heavies didn't always fly that high during the war (Lancasters in Operation Chastise or B-24s during Operation Tidal Wave)

 

-Too many crew positions: True they do have lost of men but you don't have to model every position just a few important ones. In the B-17 you could just model the nose, cockpit, top turret, ball turret and tail gun, this way you don't have to model the whole interior of the waist gunners position. (I would prefer all positions be modeled however)

 

-It would ruin the gameplay: I disagree, if anything it would make the gameplay that much greater. German players love to fly high anyways, this would give them a better reason to fly up high. Imo it would be thrilling to try and fly through a bomber formation and shoot down bombers while P-51s and P-47s zoom around me.

 

The only legitimate argument against heavy bombers is that the devs said it's not possible to have 4 engine aircaft in-game but I think with a bit of work it would be worth doing and would add to the overall experience of air combat in ww2. They already have the Ju52 so I dont think it's impossible or far fetched to have a 4 engine aircaft in-game. 

 

Having a heavy bomber in-game would be alot of work but it would be worth it imo.

 

EDIT: I do agree that they should have medium/tactical bombers in-game before they focus on heavies. B-26 and B-25 are essential imo.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I like the big Fort, ya get a big no from me, too. The BOX series is obviously a tactical air war sim so the B-17 has no place in the game. For the B-17 to make sense you'd have to add England. You have to make the coming Europe map much larger. You would have to include almost all of Germany. A-26 and B-26 make more sense. I would LOVE to see and Invader in the game. A quicker fix, though, would be the A-20G. We already have the early version of the Havoc, so turning it into the soild nosed version with the power operated turret should be a breeze. Hell, they could probably have that available in a couple of days!

And reading back through all of the posts, I see that all of my points had already been made....so noone needed my two cents!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You wouldn't need a large map and you wouldn't have to include germany at all. You could do B-17 raids over normandy or have them airstart over certain portions of the map.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Legion. That would miss the whole point of having the B-17. What's the point, then? Twin engined bombers could do the job you're talking about, and usually did. And airstarts? Yuch. I still think that the old Flying Fortress has no place in the game. And, anyway, what's the use in arguing about it? Jason already said he's not doing. 

Share this post


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

You could do B-17 raids over normandy...

 

Not on a Bodenplatte map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

 

Not on a Bodenplatte map.

Clearly. I was speaking of future expansions.

 

58 minutes ago, Poochnboo said:

No Legion. That would miss the whole point of having the B-17. What's the point, then? Twin engined bombers could do the job you're talking about, and usually did. And airstarts? Yuch. I still think that the old Flying Fortress has no place in the game. And, anyway, what's the use in arguing about it? Jason already said he's not doing. 

The point is the experience. Just because something can do the job of another thing doesn't mean they both shouldn't be in game. I'd just like to experience escorting heavies to their target or trying to intercept them as the Germans, the historical accuracy is not as important to me as the experience (there are quite a few things in this game already that are incorrect and historically inaccurate.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the one aspect/theater that Jason isn't interested in tackling (and I don't blame him) so there you go.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anything, for a four engine, Liberator would be by far a better option given the extreme diversity of the missions it carried through in all theatres.

 

 

Edited by =LD=Hethwill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, of course it’s a debate and hopefully everyone is going to defend his positions.

 

Though I do NOT understand why so many experts here speaks in name of developpers, advancing always the same statements.

 

Can’t you understand many people are just fond of the B-17 design, as a very elegant and awesome Airframe on it’s own ?

 

 

878B3F0A-6A90-4882-871E-1184A15F6F0F.thumb.jpeg.96e0fffafec7ce9e484b9bf03f04fd0b.jpeg

 

 

Holy prop, we have like every single variant of the 109 and 190 and those ubiquitous Fighters as well as « What can I actually do with » planes such the Ju-52.. the B-17 definitely has its place. Even though currently not historically accurate, Kuban map is wide enough to be it’s hunting range, period. Optimising stuff to welcome a Flying Fortress must be something in the scope of these geniuses.

 

For those making assumptions that the B-17 is a complex A/C, you just get too much impressed by it. It’s a pretty simple design actually, built to last and to be easily serviceable on field with many interchangeable parts. Pretty straight forwards, it has four engines using superchargers for high alt performances, pretty much like current A-20.

 

 

B9BA0B2A-D945-45FF-A53E-F5FA68DDF30C.thumb.jpeg.e2987c8159c823e23cde084c210074dd.jpeg

 

 

I know this plane intimely as studying it for like twenty years, it’s history, design, building, development etc. Probably the most complex stuff to do could be the Norden modeling and integration ( they worked on K-14 Gunsight so they must know their stuff about aiming aids ) and original implementation of multicrew and management system in single player pretty much like B-17 II : The Mighty Eighth was ( still an awesome sim nearly 20 years after ), but for sure if there is such a strong and continious popular demand, it wil come sooner or later.

 

Keep showing your interest dudes ! And I’d personally give 1500 USD just to start the project and encourage others to follow.

 

 

Hueyman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason the B-17 can’t be modelled at the moment is because if the size of the crew. It’s nothing to do with the aircraft itself - the game just can’t handle that many crew members in one plane.

 

Besides, it’s pointless to have a B-17 when there’s no suitable map for it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once made the mistake of buying a second an Oasis CD expecting it to be somehow different from their last. I was a fool. 

 

 

Share this post


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

 

Can’t you understand many people are just fond of the B-17 design, as a very elegant and awesome Airframe on it’s own ?

 

 

Can't you understand that we all would love to see any four engine bomber in the game... but as has been stated in god knows how many threads, the game engine just cannot handle multiple crewmen, all with their own modelling and coding required that would ground the game to a halt... it certainly has nothing to do with people not wanting one! 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B17 for late west front operation is a must. Not for  Bodenplatte, but for mp missions, sp campaigns & career - B17 very true. Knowing limits and available resources B17  (if someday) IMHO should be modeled as AI with simplified FM psychic. 

Edited by 307_Tomcat
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason said no, he's not doing it! Boy, we are a thick headed bunch aren't we. If you want a B-17, the right people to ask for it are over at CLOD. PERFECT match for the airplane. England, the Channel, Continental Europe....they're all there. I would love to see them expand into that direction after 5.0. (If it ever comes out). Take CLOD up to 1943. Razorback Thunderbolts escorting B-17's across the English Channel or North Sea. I'd love it!

Here, no. It's all about tactical air war (for the frigging hundredth time) and the Forts just don't fit. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Here, no. It's all about tactical air war 

Here it is for what they can deliver right now. It is a good idea to start with simple aircraft on simple maps with simple types of missions. The Eastern Front is very convenient for that.

But the scope of this sim is ever increasing. It is not just tactical air war. You can drive tanks now too, remember?. And there are few things less suited worse for tactical air war than using a tank.

 

We want it all. At least I do. If we are supporting the dev team enough, we shall get most of that. Some things will come sooner, some later.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

You can drive tanks now too, remember?.

Well, no Zach. That still fits. It's tactical. Battlefield related. Not Strategic. That's bringing the war home to the enemy. Bombing his factories, his  cities. Hindering or stopping his ability to make war. There are no Strategic targets for heavy bombers. This remains a TACTICAL combat sim. Attacking his troops and other assets in the field. Something that heavy bombers had proven, during the fighting for Normady,  they were not good at. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

What IL-2 : Battle of X really is : the best WWII Aircraft Sim out there, with huge potential, period.

Edited by Hueyman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 minutes ago, Hueyman said:

You are in your own world assuming it’s tactical

I have a feeling we aren't understanding the word "Tactical" in the same way. 

Share this post


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

It's tactical.

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.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...