Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I strongly believe that a four engine bomber is required with the 262 coming to IL2 while i understand the workload to do this it simply makes no sense to have a jet powered ground attack / anti bomber aircraft without its target.. And lets be honest the IL2 team is failing the bomber pilots... they but the A-20B in with the 1943 mod ... were is the G??? tho the A-20B has a decent overall payload the most effective payloads are not included (8x 250kgs). So i want peoples opinions does this game need....

 

1. two engine bombers

2. A bomber at least on par with the HE111 H-16 with destructive power. 

3. Mosquito and other fast twin engine bombers to make it more than a turkey shoot for 262s

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I would like these two contenders to be considered for future projects, fast and  maneuverable enough not to be a 🦃 shoot and without a myriad of gun positions to be modelled.

Martin_B-26_Marauder_-_01.jpg

d-h-mosquito-intruder-ops-pat-speirs.jpg

Edited by bzc3lk
  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, FFS_SaburoSakai said:

I strongly believe that a four engine bomber is required with the 262 coming to IL2 while i understand the workload to do this it simply makes no sense to have a jet powered ground attack / anti bomber aircraft without its target.. And lets be honest the IL2 team is failing the bomber pilots... they but the A-20B in with the 1943 mod ... were is the G??? tho the A-20B has a decent overall payload the most effective payloads are not included (8x 250kgs). So i want peoples opinions does this game need....

 

1. two engine bombers

2. A bomber at least on par with the HE111 H-16 with destructive power. 

3. Mosquito and other fast twin engine bombers to make it more than a turkey shoot for 262s

 

Afaik the A-20G was not present at Kuban. Only the B and C (mostly B). Although the G would be nice for Bodenplatte having bombers doesn't fit that battle at all (which I'm sure is an intentional decision by 1C/777 due to the development cost. Might come as collectors' planes later on).

 

Also the use of Pe-8s was focused in the north during this period (Leningrad, Finland, Estonia, etc.), and the most prominent bomber aside from the Pe-2s and A-20s was the IL-4 (with a respectable 2.5 ton bomb load) and to some degree the Tu-2, which I'd say would be nice to have, but seeing we have the A-20 they are a bit redundant. Larger payload, sure, but I don't know if Russia needs two tactical bombers and a tactical/strategic bomber (IL-4 was often used as a strategic bomber even though it per design was a tactical one, but the A-20s and Pe-2s filled that role already).

 

Also not sure if any Mosquitos actually took part in Bodenplatte. They were bombed, but no idea if they took to the air to defend the bases.

Edited by Inkoslav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Inkoslav said:

 

Also not sure if any Mosquitos actually took part in Bodenplatte. They were bombed, but no idea if they took to the air to defend the bases.

 

https://il2sturmovik.com/news/394/dev-blog-193/

 

"As we said in our previous Dev Blog #192, we're making all four different seasons for this map. Some might think that we'll model only 1-2 days of the actual Bodenplatte operation when the Luftwaffe made the all-out attack on the Allied airfields near Brussels and Antwerp. However, our “Battle of” series is much more than that! The Career mode for this new theatre of war will last from September 17th, 1944 to March 28th, 1945 – 188 days of war in total."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True. Didn't think about that part. Warrants Mosquitos, A-20Gs, B-25s, B-26s, Me 410s, Ju 188s, etc :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Inkoslav said:

True. Didn't think about that part. Warrants Mosquitos, A-20Gs, B-25s, B-26s, Me 410s, Ju 188s, etc :P

Me 410 and Ju 188.

giphy.gif

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yes please, think you very much. 

 

The birth of this pack was based on gaining time , money and intrest from DCS and COD  community. Achieving this as cheap and with AS little  recourses AS possible, to be able to launch Pacific.

In this perspective, I have no hopes for a flyable bomber. Not even making the ai b25 flyable.

I know nothing about sales number, but by reading other forums , I believe they succeding in the part of gaining intrest. 

I am not saying I do not wish for bombers in this pack, nor more and bigger maps. Because it might be a bigger moneymaker doing so, compare to pacific, but I really hope they still aim for pacific, and we do not have to choose between the two

Edited by LuseKofte
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, FFS_SaburoSakai said:

And lets be honest the IL2 team is failing the bomber pilots

 

In your opinion.

 

2 hours ago, FFS_SaburoSakai said:

they put the A-20B in with the 1943 mod ... where is the G??? tho the A-20B has a decent overall payload the most effective payloads are not included (8x 250kgs)

 

They've not modeled the G, because they've not had the time to model it yet (there are a number of cockpit and turret differences between the two, to say nothing of external model changes). All of that takes time and money.

 

8 x 250 kg could not be carried by the B model.

Edited by LukeFF
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Luke, developers have been kind to bomberpilots , you have to concider the popularity statitstics. However a pack without bombers will play itself very different. And I for one do not think that will be beneficial

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Answer strongly depends what definition you have of "bomber" 

 

My own definition is "big thing with bombsight for proper level bombing" (Mosquito is NOT a bomber in my book), and to this extent, I think devs have done a good job so far, including for each planeset one type for both side. Considering the lower investment return these planes have for them, I'm thankful for the job they've done.

However it's true that future doesn't look very appealing with BoBp, I would have largely prefered a flyable B25/26 right away and a late Ju88 (or 188) variant. But I understand the choice they made. I think with their current situation and ressources, it was a wise choice.

And let's be honest, flying bomber in late war scenarios will be even less rewarding considering the performances and firepower of the interceptors you will face.

 

If your definition is "plane that can carry bombs" then I don't see any complaints to be made, almost any plane in the game can carry bombs, and the incoming P47, Tempest and P38 will bring very potent planes in that regards. Even if it has a marginally better ordnance weight, mosquito is just one of many other designs fit for the job and not a "must have".

Edited by F/JG300_Gruber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big, 4-engined bombers just aren’t worth the time and ressources they consume in development. However, more twin engines are feasible and would definitely be high on my list.

 

Making the AI B-25 of BoBP flyable will be first order of business, obviously, but a B-26, IL-4, Tu-2, Do 217 or Ju 188 would all be both realistic and most welcome.

 

I hope the experiments with 3rd party developers will prove fruitful enough, that they can be used to flesh out the plane sets in the future.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok... let's just remind ourselves yet again.

It has been stated many many times in thread after thread on the inclusion of heavy bombers with multiple crew stations... the answer has always been NO! not going to happen... 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why it'd be nice with at least something like the 410. It only has two crew stations (pilot and gunner). No real match for the Allies though afaik, unless they get the A-26 invader (3 crew stations), but that'll just be unfair against Germany.

Share this post


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

Big, 4-engined bombers just aren’t worth the time and ressources they consume in development.

 

 

 

You may well be right.

 

But I'll bet if they released a B-17 or a Lancaster at the delicious level of detail that BOX planes come at, we'd both buy it.  :biggrin:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

 

You may well be right.

 

But I'll bet if they released a B-17 or a Lancaster at the delicious level of detail that BOX planes come at, we'd both buy it.  :biggrin:

 

I wouldn't mind spending 30€ on each of these ! :fly:

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

 

You may well be right.

 

But I'll bet if they released a B-17 or a Lancaster at the delicious level of detail that BOX planes come at, we'd both buy it.  :biggrin:

 

Obvioysly I would (personally I’d prefer a B-24 and a Halifax) 

 

But if you ask me if I’d rather have one B-17 model or a package with 3 medium bombers (let’s say Tu-2, B-26 and Ju 188) I know which one I’d go for.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, F/JG300_Gruber said:

Answer strongly depends what definition you have of "bomber" 

 

True.  Do any of the bombers have a navigator who can navigate, a bomb aimer who can drop bombs, a gunner who can spot a distant enemy aircraft or an engineer who can monitor the engines?  Nope! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pe-8? No thanks!

 

Maybe a dedicated, stand-alone "viermot" bomber sim somewhere down the road, but such a sim will look very different from what 777 Studios are proposing in the near future...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

everyone and there damn B-17 and Lancaster... ...let see a Halifax or a Dornier 217

 

halifax-complete1.jpg

 

and 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Inkoslav said:

That's why it'd be nice with at least something like the 410. It only has two crew stations (pilot and gunner).

 

It's been said again and again and again and again that Me 410s by this point in the war (i.e., post-June 1944) were relegated to recon duties. They_were_not bomber interceptors, bombers, or jabos, full stop. If you want a German daylight bomber for the last year of the war, look to the Ar 234.

 

4 hours ago, Inkoslav said:

No real match for the Allies though afaik, unless they get the A-26 invader (3 crew stations), but that'll just be unfair against Germany.

 

:scratch_one-s_head:

Edited by LukeFF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty clear heavy bombers aren't happening in this sim, for a variety of reasons. The size of the maps, the game engine, and the size of the dev team make them borderline impossible (in the time it takes to model a B-17, they could probably model 4 fighters). 

TBH a heavy bomber sim would have to be its own thing, with a dedicated team and an engine built to deal with the issues of bomber combat. To get the kind of fidelity you get out of BoX and still be able to run it without God's own gaming rig...that's a tall order. There seems to be a lot of enthusiasm for it, so maybe someday someone will take a run at it. But this team has basically said they're not going to and we have to respect that.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This sim's sweet spot is tactical warfare.  Not for a minute would I suggest that large bombers are easy or owed to us.  Besides, as soon as you added a B17 somebody would complain about not being able to make a 1000 bomber mission 😖.  If not that then there would be howls of dissatisfaction when the price of the B17 was the same as an 8 plane set.  We're being robbed I tell you, ROBBED!

 

There is so much tactical warfare yet to be covered.  Battle of France.  Battle of Britain.  Mediterranean, Italy, Kursk, Bagration, Leningrad, Berlin, and that is just in the west.  There is still the Pacific, winter war, China vs Japan with the Flying Tigers tossed in.  The idea of mixing tactical with strategic sounds great, but you have to accept that the choices are "or", not an unlimited string of "and"

Edited by PatrickAWlson
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

There is so much tactical warfare yet to be covered.  Battle of France.

 

I'd love to have a module or three for "The Phoney War". There are sooooo many interesting, obscure, and otherwise never ever represented planes in there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As cool as the Pe-8 was in IL-2: 1946, I don't feel a strong need to revisit it again. The Russians used them so sparingly compared to the rest of the types in their arsenal. It wouldn't be anywhere close to my first choice.

 

IF, and I make this a big IF, 1CGS wants to devote resources for a heavy bomber that we could use across multiple scenarios and something that people would latch on to. Make it the B-17 or B-24. Either of those would be heavily used in single and multiplayer and I could see some cool uses. I don't think we're going to see either of those soon but hypothetically.. those would be the ones.

 

More immediately, the B-25 AI could be later turned into a flyable bomber, the A-20G is certainly a candidate although its less bomber and more attacker and there's a bunch of other options out there like the B-26 and Ar234 (and I wrote a whole thread and a blog post on this subject: https://stormbirds.blog/2018/05/20/where-are-the-bombers-in-il-2-battle-of-bodenplatte-and-how-we-might-add-some/).

 

For Bodenplatte, IF, the devs do a Collector Plane release, I think the Ar234 would be a strong contender. It's the only bomber the Luftwaffe was really using at this point (in small numbers anyways) in several notable battles even and it has the advantage of being fairly small and a single station.

 

Not too much else to say. Bombers are complex, they take more time to build. and with an aggressive dev schedule like what we see, they aren't exactly on the radar.

Edited by ShamrockOneFive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

13 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

It's been said again and again and again and again that Me 410s by this point in the war (i.e., post-June 1944) were relegated to recon duties.

 

Not true. Hungarian air force used them as fast bombers during 44-45.

 

13_7.jpg

Edited by Ropalcz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Ropalcz said:

 

 

Not true. Hungarian air force used them as fast bombers during 44-45.

 

13_7.jpg

 

Except that is an Me 210. AFIAK the Hungarians never operated the Me 410.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Finkeren said:

 

Except that is an Me 210. AFIAK the Hungarians never operated the Me 410.

 

Almost same planes, only changed engines (DB 605 for 603). Hungarian 210 Ca-1 had more powerful version of DB 605 than normal 210.

 

KG51 used Me 410 in France after D-Day.

Edited by Ropalcz

Share this post


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

As cool as the Pe-8 was in IL-2: 1946, I don't feel a strong need to revisit it again. The Russians used them so sparingly compared to the rest of the types in their arsenal. It wouldn't be anywhere close to my first choice.

 

What I took away from the Pe-8 project for IL-2:1946, is that there were more subversions than aircraft build. There was a large variety of engines and other modifications, individual aircraft were rebuilt or modified. There's basically no standard type Pe-8. Beautiful and amazing aircraft, but in terms of effort / historical importance very much on the bottom of the list.

 

Personally I'd love to see a British four engined bomber instead of a US. We've had the B-24 in Il-2:1946, but I don't recall ever having seen a British one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ropalcz said:

 

Almost same planes, only changed engines (DB 605 for 603). Almost the same difference like between late 109 G-2 and G-4 - almost non-existent.

 

KG51 used Me 410 in France after D-Day.

 

Except for the fact the 210 will try kill it's pilot if looked at funny  hence why they called it a 410 and not a 210 b.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, AeroAce said:

 

Except for the fact the 210 will try kill it's pilot if looked at funny  hence why they called it a 410 and not a 210 b.

 

Does not change the fact, that A-26 Invader (or Mossie) and 410 would be nice collector planes :)

 

Especially this Mosquito with "Cookie"

_83484384_kielbombwearn.jpg

Edited by Ropalcz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Ropalcz said:

KG51 used Me 410 in France after D-Day.

 

I./KG 51 was withdrawn from operations in June '44 to convert to the Me 262.

II./KG 51 began conversion to Me 262s in mid-August (though yes, it did operate from France for a time as intruders and night fighters before then, I will concede that).

III./KG 51 never flew the Me 410 operationally.

 

So, my point stands: given the timeframe of the game (September 1944 - March 1945), the Me 410 is entirely irrelevant for the Western Front. It would only make sense for a 44/45 Eastern Front campaign over Hungary, or if the developers backed up the timeline to include the Normandy invasion.

Edited by LukeFF
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Ropalcz said:

 

Almost same planes, only changed engines (DB 605 for 603). Hungarian 210 Ca-1 had more powerful version of DB 605 than normal 210.

 

Not at all. The Me 410 drastically changed the wing planform (the Me 210 had back swept leading edge outboard of the engine) which significantly improved the near disastrous handling qualities of the 210. They are absolutely not the same plane.

 

BTW: I'd personally like to see the Me 410 as a collector's plane. It's a very interesting aircraft and should be a ground attackers dream with the unobstructed view downwards and forwards.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

Yes please, think you very much. 

 

The birth of this pack was based on gaining time , money and intrest from DCS and COD  community. Achieving this as cheap and with AS little  recourses AS possible, to be able to launch Pacific.

In this perspective, I have no hopes for a flyable bomber. Not even making the ai b25 flyable.

I know nothing about sales number, but by reading other forums , I believe they succeding in the part of gaining intrest. 

I am not saying I do not wish for bombers in this pack, nor more and bigger maps. Because it might be a bigger moneymaker doing so, compare to pacific, but I really hope they still aim for pacific, and we do not have to choose between the two

Yes, PTO first and later devs can bomb us with all kind of collector planes....i'll buy them all!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Finkeren said:

Big, 4-engined bombers just aren’t worth the time and ressources they consume in development.

 

-> Irony busted :blush:

A similar diskussion long ago we had about 3-engined planes aren’t worth the time, ressources or not possible yet..............

What will say the Devs about 4-engined planes the same what they said about the 3-engined planes before!

BTW we have a 3-engined Ju-52 already so we aren’t far away from 4-engined planes. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Livai said:

 

-> Irony busted :blush:

A similar diskussion long ago we had about 3-engined planes aren’t worth the time, ressources or not possible yet..............

What will say the Devs about 4-engined planes the same what they said about the 3-engined planes before!

BTW we have a 3-engined Ju-52 already so we aren’t far away from 4-engined planes. 

It has nothing to do with the number of engines and everything to do with the number of crew stations and gunner positions that will have to be modeled - and also the complexity of the DM.

 

Share this post


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

 

-> Irony busted :blush:

A similar diskussion long ago we had about 3-engined planes aren’t worth the time, ressources or not possible yet..............

What will say the Devs about 4-engined planes the same what they said about the 3-engined planes before!

BTW we have a 3-engined Ju-52 already so we aren’t far away from 4-engined planes. 

 

 

Engine number has nothing to do with the complexity (really). It's what comes with the four engined aircraft.

 

A B-17G has 8 gunner stations plus the cockpit at minimum. Each of those stations would take essentially the same amount of time as another aircraft's cockpit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He 111 Has 4 Gunners with 5 Weapons. PE-8 has 5 Gunners with 5 Weapons. Yes i know it's unlikeley. But one should be allowed to dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Remarkably descriptive thread title. Well, at least the Pe-8 is a bomber...

 

On 7/10/2018 at 8:41 AM, FFS_SaburoSakai said:

I strongly believe that a four engine bomber is required with the 262 [...] makes no sense to have a jet powered ground attack / anti bomber aircraft without its target.

You've answered your own question. The Me 262 is included for its activity in the ground attack role.

On 6/5/2018 at 10:26 AM, BlackSix said:

As we've no real targets for the Kdo Nowotny I don't think about such campaign. I. and II./KG 51 who had fighter-bombers Me 262 A-2a have more chances... 

 

On 7/10/2018 at 8:41 AM, FFS_SaburoSakai said:

IL2 team is failing the bomber pilots... they but the A-20B in with the 1943 mod ... were is the G???

Right, they failed the bomber pilots by not doing the model without bombsight... :russian_ru:

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

I'm a huge fan of the B-25, hopefully it will be flyable one day. Preferably a Mitchell II (B-25C/D), as it could be used in many more scenarios than a Mitchell III (B-25J) and was the main RAF version anyways. Time will tell.

The B-26 is quite an overlooked aircraft and I would love to see some justice done to here. They were based in France thought, outside the upcoming map.
My hopes for her are mainly related to a future "Battle of Papua New Guinea (early Phase)". I'd absolutely love that.

Pointing to my signature, the "Droop Snoot" would be a worthwhile addition to the modifications of the upcoming P-38J. Something more unusual and definitely a massive enhancement not only to the Lightning itself, but to the BoBP planeset in general.

Edited by =27=Davesteu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Finkeren said:

It has nothing to do with the number of engines and everything to do with the number of crew stations and gunner positions that will have to be modeled - and also the complexity of the DM.

 

5 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

Engine number has nothing to do with the complexity (really). It's what comes with the four engined aircraft.

 

A B-17G has 8 gunner stations plus the cockpit at minimum. Each of those stations would take essentially the same amount of time as another aircraft's cockpit.

 

 

complexity - where? - AI-planes don't have the complexity how player planes have

 

The problem lies not in the complexity but we speak about long-range bombers like the B-17 or the Pe-8 so the map size need to be twice bigger than we have now or you want to land and to start in the air with your B-17 or the Pe-8 and the other problem are the very large cities what these bombers are bombing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Livai said:

 

complexity - where? - AI-planes don't have the complexity how player planes have

 Yes, they do. The AI uses the exact same FM, DM and engine management that we do. That’s part of what makes this sim unique.

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

×