B-24 Liberator

[ROCKET_KNUT]

Just another case of devs "being cute" or maybe an actual hint?

Since, as far as I get it, there is no need for nine firing positions in any a/c represented in the present plane set.

What do you guys think?

 

 

[BMA_FlyingShark]

5 minutes ago, ROCKET_KNUT said:

What do you guys think?

Maybe it's part of the very early stages of the game when they didn't know for sure yet how many firing positions they'll need.

I don't think it has anything to do with a hint towards heavy bombers.

 

Have a nice day.

 

[LukeFF]

21 minutes ago, ROCKET_KNUT said:

Just another case of devs "being cute" or maybe an actual hint?

Since, as far as I get it, there is no need for nine firing positions in any a/c represented in the present plane set.

What do you guys think?

 

Those entries have been there for years.

[Antiguo]

Of course I would like a heavy bomber, but I think they are not able to implement the position of navigator in the A20, it will be impossible for them to develop a B17 or a B 24 .....

 

my thoughts.

 

 

Cheers

[Legioneod]

2 hours ago, Ala13_Antiguo said:

Of course I would like a heavy bomber, but I think they are not able to implement the position of navigator in the A20, it will be impossible for them to develop a B17 or a B 24 .....

 

my thoughts.

 

 

Cheers

They could always add the nav position to the A-20 nothing was stopping them from doing so. But why add a position that has no use in-game? Personally I'd like to have the nose position modeled just for the view but I understand why they didn't waste time adding it in.

Edited December 4, 2019 by Legioneod

[TheBlackPenguin]

Resources probably the main issue...The team has, like wine, become better with age, so I suspect someday we'll see something done to improve this.

 

There some low level raids conducted by heavies, and yes the results were heavy loss.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augsburg_raid

 

I love all the heavies though

[Stab./JG3_Hartmann]

Well, to be fair the allied heavies had heavy losses on day raids too. 
Just look for Schweinfurth. Some more of these and the US Bomber Fleets would have switched to night bombing too.

 

But back to topic: a heavy bomber would be more work to make, yes. But it wouldn’t be really more complicated than a medium one. We don’t even need to be able to man every gunner station in the beginning.

[[DBS]Browning]

10 hours ago, JG3_Hartmann said:

Well, to be fair the allied heavies had heavy losses on day raids too. 

 

The average loss for B-24 and B-17 groups was 0.39 planes per combat mission [1].

The worst ever loss of bombers in a single daylight mission was a loss of 16% [2].

The casualty rate for the 8th airforce was about 12% [3]. Compare that to a casualty rate of 52% for the UK's Bomber Command [4] and ~75% for German U-boats [5].

 

[40plus]

52 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

The average loss for B-24 and B-17 groups was 0.39 planes per combat mission [1].

The worst ever loss of bombers in a single daylight mission was a loss of 16% [2].

The casualty rate for the 8th airforce was about 12% [3]. Compare that to a casualty rate of 52% for the UK's Bomber Command [4] and ~75% for German U-boats [5].

 

That's what happens when you show up to a war late.

[Legioneod]

3 hours ago, pfrances said:

That's what happens when you show up to a war late.

Wasn’t our war at the start so why join it sooner than we have to?

[Gambit21]

4 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

The average loss for B-24 and B-17 groups was 0.39 planes per combat mission [1].

The worst ever loss of bombers in a single daylight mission was a loss of 16% [2].

The casualty rate for the 8th airforce was about 12% [3]. Compare that to a casualty rate of 52% for the UK's Bomber Command [4] and ~75% for German U-boats [5].

 

 

Don Bryan of the 352nd told me that he never saw a 262 go through a bomber box without taking AT LEAST 2 B-17’s down.

 

So somehow I doubt 2 was the greatest loss in a single mission.

[[DBS]Browning]

11 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Don Bryan of the 352nd told me that he never saw a 262 go through a bomber box without taking AT LEAST 2 B-17’s down.

 

So somehow I doubt 2 was the greatest loss in a single mission.

 

Who said "2 was the greatest loss in a single mission"?

Take a look at the reports from the time.

Here is the 303rd BG as an example.

 

Mission 357, amongst others, recalls a 262 attack:

Quote

From six to eight ME-262s were encountered just after departing the target.Attacks were the usual tail attacks with someflying very close to the group formations,some to within 50 feet and some daring fighterpilots flew right through the formation. Therewere only two reports of nose and sideattacks. Claims by 303BG(H) gunners were assessed at four probables, even though the gunners themselves believed that at least twowere destroyed. The attacks lasted for twenty minutes. The 1st AD formations wereprotected by 273 P-51s with good support.Moderate and accurate anti-aircraft firewas encountered by the lead and low Squadrons in the area around Merseburg and againat the target. Flak was inaccurate for the high Squadron. Four aircraft sustained major battle damage and nine, minor damage. Returning aircraft had no casualties. Henn's Revenge, piloted by 2Lt. Robert I. Murray, with acrew of nine was lost. It was hit by the attacking ME-262s coming in on the tail of themissing aircraft. It burst into flames between the No. 3 and No. 4 engines, held course forvery few seconds, then peeled slightly up and slid over and down to the right through theformation, apparently out of control, and crashed at Oranienburg. No parachutes were seen.

 

[Gambit21]

1 minute ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

Who said "2 was the greatest loss in a single mission"?

 

 

 

I thought you did - but misunderstood your post apparently.

[Stab./JG3_Hartmann]

15 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

The average loss for B-24 and B-17 groups was 0.39 planes per combat mission [1].

The worst ever loss of bombers in a single daylight mission was a loss of 16% [2].

The casualty rate for the 8th airforce was about 12% [3]. Compare that to a casualty rate of 52% for the UK's Bomber Command [4] and ~75% for German U-boats [5].

 

Yeah well, I didn’t mean average as seen on the whole war but single operations like operation „Double Strike“ with 146 bombers attacking Regensburg and 230 attacking Schweinfurt.

Makes 376 bombers of which 60 were shot down and 176 were damaged, ~27 to 40 of those had heavy damage.

 

Luftwaffe lost 25 of 300 mostly single engine fighters.
 

Two months later they attacked Schweinfurt again and lost 77 B-17, 121 damaged so badly they had to be scraped.

 

Operation Tidal Wave, 177 B-24 against oilfields in Ploesti, 53 were shot down and 55 got heavy damage.

 

That doesn’t seem like a small percent of losses and if they wouldn’t have gotten the P-51 short time after that, the air war over Europe/Germany very well would have taken another path as the USAAF decided to take a pause on day time bombings deep in enemy territory after those losses.

[BornToBattle]

On 11/26/2019 at 11:25 AM, Leifr said:

 

A man can dream.

Or grovel. Hell, it’s not beneath me to grovel for a ‘24. Ever.
 

I’d even settle for a ‘17...cough...cough...if it meant the ‘24 would come soon (very soon) after.
 

I just wanna pilot the thing. Make the other stations AI, I don’t care. Beats the old days of flying Avalon Hill’s B-17 Queen of the Skies, yes, the old “cardboard war” times, especially in VR!

 

 

 

 

I know they say it can’t be done, but real time career kill and mission markings eye candy would be the icing on the cake.

 

 

 

Seeing how the kills are Japanese I’m well aware that this is an example of doubled wishful thinking! Ah, but once again, “a man can dream” - or grovel. Did I already mention groveling Jason?

Edited December 7, 2019 by BornToBattle

[Five_By_Five]

I'm not a techie but, how is it that IL21946 has heavy bombers but Il2BOS doesn't?

Is it something about the basics of the game engine?

Thinking I might have to put that old game back on my PC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5_aEud6IT8

I had the BAT mod on my old computer. I recall it was a difficult and time consuming setup . . . but totally worth it.  

Edited December 8, 2019 by Five_By_Five

[Rei-sen]

16 hours ago, Five_By_Five said:

I'm not a techie but, how is it that IL21946 has heavy bombers but Il2BOS doesn't?

Is it something about the basics of the game engine?

Thinking I might have to put that old game back on my PC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5_aEud6IT8

I had the BAT mod on my old computer. I recall it was a difficult and time consuming setup . . . but totally worth it.  

BAT installation is quite easy and straightforward process now. You just nees to run exe files in correct sequence.

[Mauf]

On 12/8/2019 at 4:12 AM, Five_By_Five said:

I'm not a techie but, how is it that IL21946 has heavy bombers but Il2BOS doesn't?

Is it something about the basics of the game engine?

Thinking I might have to put that old game back on my PC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5_aEud6IT8

I had the BAT mod on my old computer. I recall it was a difficult and time consuming setup . . . but totally worth it.  

 

The problem is the per plane calculation effort. In IL2 1946, the flight and AI model was simpler. Therefore you could add more planes without running into problems. In BoX, AI uses the same model as the player which adds alot more computational overhead (not to mention the need to model a big bomber to the fidelity of a player flight model).

[CountZero]

Even if you just try to add airplane like this or (B-17) as AI only it would be pointles, as the way game works now you could not have many in air. They would have to spend time to make AI B-24 have simple FM, and simple AI gunner brain, so even more money need to be spend on it then on for example AI B-25, B-26 C-47, that later on you can try to sell as playable, what you could not with B-24. So chances for B-24 in this game are low, even if its just AI.

[[DBS]TH0R]

On 12/5/2019 at 8:05 AM, JG3_Hartmann said:

Yeah well, I didn’t mean average as seen on the whole war but single operations like operation „Double Strike“ with 146 bombers attacking Regensburg and 230 attacking Schweinfurt.

Makes 376 bombers of which 60 were shot down and 176 were damaged, ~27 to 40 of those had heavy damage.

 

Luftwaffe lost 25 of 300 mostly single engine fighters.
 

Two months later they attacked Schweinfurt again and lost 77 B-17, 121 damaged so badly they had to be scraped.

 

Operation Tidal Wave, 177 B-24 against oilfields in Ploesti, 53 were shot down and 55 got heavy damage.

 

That doesn’t seem like a small percent of losses and if they wouldn’t have gotten the P-51 short time after that, the air war over Europe/Germany very well would have taken another path as the USAAF decided to take a pause on day time bombings deep in enemy territory after those losses.

 

You can't take isolated missions and use them for percentages. One has to look at the period average statistics.

 

The missions you are using for examples are without escorts, and in particular in B-24 and Ploesti example - low level where bombers are even more vulnerable to flak.

 

The common misconception is that P-51 changed the story with its long range. Sure it helped, but the concept of escorting changed drastically in 1944 - from continuous escort to phased escorts where different groups covered different areas. And as such this also extended the P-47 range. While escorting bombers (i.e. flying slower and doing circles around them or on stations around) fighters lose fuel and not to mention ammo after every engagement since they fly below their optimal cruise settings.

 

All of this is without even going into other new tactics as to hunt LW on the ground and on the way home.

Edited December 10, 2019 by [DBS]TH0R