Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mysticpuma

If they ever get to TF6 what four engine bomber would you prefer?

If they ever get to TF6 what US four engine bomber would you prefer?  

33 members have voted

  1. 1. If they ever get to TF6 what four engine bomber would you prefer?

    • B-24
      17
    • B-17
      16


Recommended Posts

I do hope that TFS manage to get to TF6, even if it is to add a US four engine bomber either B-17 or B-24, a P-51B/C and a P-47 Razorback (along with a few others no doubt).

One thing that CloD does really well is Multiplayer code and as such the addition of a Bomber could open up a huge new aspect of flight simming especially if an easy access Co-Op interface is added.

 

I say B-24 or B-17 becuase CloD has the possibility of running large bomber streams and if a P-51B/C or P47 Razorback could be created in conjunction with a four engine bomber.....a lot of players would be greatly excited, especially if they could man the turrets, bomb aimer, navigation, engineer,gunners, pilot and co-pilot positions.

 

I imagine a group of Ai bombers and 5-6 human crews among them. One long bomber mission, Ai enemy and flak and getting to the target, being damaged and working as a team to try and get back. Should this be done online, against human players, they would not know which of the bomber stream contained the human crews and this would add a level of cat and mouse to any attack. The thought of a team playing as a bomber crew along with a large formation of Ai almost opens up a huge new window of opportunity for players who want to Co-Op a single bomber playing all parts of the crew together, as a team.

 

With that in mind, which four engine bomber would you prefer if TF6 ever gets greenlit? B-17 or B-24? Cheers, MP

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First I would say that we need to see that TF 5.0 is a success first.

2nd, hopefully everyone understands creating a 4 engined bomber is a HUGE task and would take a long time.

So while MP may go ahead and post his poll, there are no guarantees and no promises from TF and MP's poll is not official or binding.

 

Have changed this post so people can reply if they wish.


Re. Historical use:

Both B-17's and B-24's were used in the Desert and Mediterranean in late 1942 and 1943.

B-17's were also used on the Channel front... around the time of the Dieppe Raid... first raid August 17th of 1942. Raid was relatively short ranged... inside the dimensions of existing map.

The first daylight attacks on the Ruhr by B-17's were escorted by RAF P-51A's... the only aircraft with the range... although they had poor performance at higher altitude.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted B24 which is my fave US 4x engined bomber.

 

But my first choice would be the Lancaster and then the Halifax.

 

Mike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B-17 because Memphis Belle one of the best movies ever.

I would rather see a flyable Short Sunderland or Condor.

Anyway we're not there yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I'd like to see the Sunderland and the Fw-200 as the flyable 4 engine planes for TF 6.0. I think for TF 6.5 and or 7.0, the Lancaster, B-24 and maybe the Me-323. I feel that the B-17 should come after these for late 1943-1944.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all very well going on about 4 engine Bombers...….personally, I think it will be an achievement IF TF5 EVER comes out

Edited by No.85_Camm
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went with the B-24 although both are valid and would be most welcome I am sure, however, as others have said I would rather see the remaining aircraft flyable be they four engine or not.  At least that way they do not have to build the complete model which would take a big part of the work out of it, for me it would be adequate to have just the pilot position operable.:drinks:

 

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.:biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a "breather" crewed b17 raid of 10's of aircraft would be something to behold. But I doubt any multiplayer code could handle it for probably the next 50 years even given CLODs preeminence in this field. I mean, b17 crew of 10 or 11 per plane, you could eat up all the slots and not even get a full box and that's not counting the guys flying escort or trying to intercept them.

 

But my vote is for B17.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I went with the B-24 although both are valid and would be most welcome I am sure, however, as others have said I would rather see the remaining aircraft flyable be they four engine or not.  At least that way they do not have to build the complete model which would take a big part of the work out of it, for me it would be adequate to have just the pilot position operable.:drinks:

 

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.:biggrin:

We would need to build more than the Pilot position... the bombardier is required and a bombsight.

 

Regarding what turret positions need to be modeled as available to the players on the B-17/B-24:

 

-  The two single waist gunner positions are really unnecessary to model... since they are the most inaccurate and least effective... and also would required a huge amount of 3D work.  They would be left as AI.

 

- The multiple nose gunner positions for the early models, (if we did include these aircraft in TF 6.0, we would model the B-17E/F or the B-24D) are not entirely necessary, but considering the bombardier operates those weapons, and his cockpit has to be modeled, therefore they have to be rendered in 3D and they would be mannable.

 

-  The twin Tail gunner position is one of the most active, and is a common direction of attack for gamers... (not in real life though ;) ) so it would also need to be modeled.

 

-  Most active position historically is likely the upper twin position.... just behind the cockpit... it is a very flexible gun position, can fire forwards, backwards, to the side and up.  It would need to be modeled.

 

-  Twin Ball turret, (belly of the aircraft, capable of firing forwards, backwards, to the sides and down) is an important position, but since we already have modeled guns covering most of the arcs of the Ball turret, it could be left as AI.

 

The good news about turret modeling is the fact the B-17 and B-24 used the same turrets in many areas.  So the work done to create one of these aircraft could be transferred over to be used in the other.

 

All of this of course is just consideration... we cannot commit to model either of these aircraft at this stage... we will need to see what the reception is for TF 5.0.  There is no point in building another module after TF 5.0 if no one is interested in playing it.  😰

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the Lanc as well, and it has fewer crew positions. Buzzsaw, I think you are mistaken regards B17/B24 turret similarity. The Ball was (besides the 24's retract gear), but the top turret wasn't. B17 used Sperry (hydraulic); B24 used Martin (electric)--very different. The B24 tail used Consul, MPC, or Emerson; the B17 was more of a hand-held. As you mentioned, the B17E/F and B24D (my favorite versions) had no nose turret. AAF hit results suggest the Ball was the most accurate (the Navy's ERCO nose probably similar). Anyway, I very much like your solution for limiting crew positions, except maybe for the Ball, which covered a lot of airspace (but is somewhat disorienting). I would go one further: if the hit on resources turns brutal, model the positions you stated, but limit the human seat to one person who can hot-seat. Blowing up the whole thing: love dual control--for those long, boring flights.

 

I know: long-winded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2019 at 5:31 AM, buster_dee said:

Love the Lanc as well, and it has fewer crew positions. Buzzsaw, I think you are mistaken regards B17/B24 turret similarity. The Ball was (besides the 24's retract gear), but the top turret wasn't. B17 used Sperry (hydraulic); B24 used Martin (electric)--very different. The B24 tail used Consul, MPC, or Emerson; the B17 was more of a hand-held. As you mentioned, the B17E/F and B24D (my favorite versions) had no nose turret. AAF hit results suggest the Ball was the most accurate (the Navy's ERCO nose probably similar). Anyway, I very much like your solution for limiting crew positions, except maybe for the Ball, which covered a lot of airspace (but is somewhat disorienting). I would go one further: if the hit on resources turns brutal, model the positions you stated, but limit the human seat to one person who can hot-seat. Blowing up the whole thing: love dual control--for those long, boring flights.

 

I know: long-winded.

Yes, aware the top turret was different... as you say the Ball is the same.  Even when turrets are not the same... the weapons are... so some of the elements from one aircraft can be carried over to another.

 

We also could model only the top and ball turrets... plus the guns in the bombardier's cabin.  Or even just the tail turret and bombardier cabin...  although I would prefer not to leave the Top turret as AI since I think a lot of attacks will be coming from headon... it will be very dangerous to attack from the rear of a large B-17/B-24 formation because of the slower closing speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. If two gunner slots (plus the nose of course) are the safest resource bet, then I would not bump the tail for it. I love the immersion of the ball turret but, without some artificial aid, it's field of view is poor. The K4 computing sight likely had as much to do with superior accuracy as did ball, guns, sight, and gunner being rigidly wed. Computing sights sometimes found their way to other positions, but the ball always had it.

 

Apologies for shanghaiing your thread MP. Kudos for raising the poll.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t do it. From what I know of Cliffs/TF I don’t see how it would be worth it.

 

If anything, Sunderland and Condor would be a good pair, given they would tend to operate independently, plus the Mediterranean coast in TF5 and all the effort that’s gone into creating ships. 

Edited by Royal_Flight
Autocorrect typo
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest instead see an "new bomber with 4 engines", I prefer that exiting bombers have their functions working correctly, without "workaround", e.g. Lorenz landings fixed, Ju-88 controls fixed... etc. etc. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2019 at 12:13 PM, Royal_Flight said:

Don’t do it. From what I know of Cliffs/TF I don’t see how it would be worth it.

 

If anything, Sunderland and Condor would be a good pair, given they would tend to operate independently, plus the Mediterranean coast in TF5 and all the effort that’s gone into creating ships. 

The Condor never operated in the Channel map area... and never in the Mediterranean.  It was a long range recon and shipping attack aircraft used in the Atlantic.  So it wouldn't be a good choice.   If we do a Bay of Biscay map in the future, then maybe these two could be considered.

 

At this point I think the interest in these two aircraft would be a lot less than a 4 engined American type... even from the German side, there is a lot of interest in attacking these types in their formations.

6 hours ago, Sokol1 said:

To be honest instead see an "new bomber with 4 engines", I prefer that exiting bombers have their functions working correctly, without "workaround", e.g. Lorenz landings fixed, Ju-88 controls fixed... etc. etc. ;) 

We are working on the existing aircraft for TF 5.0... and hopefully will address the bugs related.

 

There are new versions of the Ju-88 and Heinkel-111H bombers included in TF 5.0.  (A-4/A-5/H-6)

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
Sign in to follow this  

×