Il-2 Battle of Normandy - Planes Visualized

[Motherbrain]

Here are pictures of each plane for the BoN expansion. Just so you can have a better idea of what we (might be) getting.

 

Spitfire Mk.XIV - (collector)

 

 

Ar 234 - (Collector)

 

 

P-51B/C

 

 

P-47D “Razorback”

 

 

Typhoon Mk.Ib

 

 

Mosquito F.B. Mk.VI

 

 

Bf 109 G-6

 

 

Fw 190 A-6

 

 

 Ju 88 C-6

 

 

Me 410

 

 

V-1 Buzz Bomb (AI ONLY)

 

 

C-47 Dakota (AI ONLY)

 

 

B-26 Marauder (AI ONLY)

 

Edited December 13, 2019 by Motherbrain

[40plus]

Wonderful post. Thanks ??

[Avimimus]

Nicely done.

 

Although the Tse-Tse Mosquito is a nice dream - it isn't the FB.VI.... maybe as a collector plane.

 

It'd also be great if the C-6 was a night fighter version... but it'll be the day fighting version (heavy fighter, train attack, coastal patrol)...

[AWC]

I doubt the Typhoon will be the early type with car doors, as it will be used in post-Bodenplatte scenarios which saw the Mk. Ib/late as the most common variant.

[FlyingNutcase]

NIce post - makes me want to pre-order now instead of later. ?

[Lusekofte]

Looking forward to the Tempest , 410 and Mosquito   
guessing the Arado will be restricted in mp as the 232 

[dun_aenghus]

Really hope we don't get the Typhoon with the car doors! Ugly as sin!

[sevenless]

10 minutes ago, dun_aenghus said:

Really hope we don't get the Typhoon with the car doors! Ugly as sin!

 

We won´t. We get a version which will work from 3/44 to 4/45 not the early 1943 version.

[Megalax]

We already have a 109G-6. They annouced the G-6 "Late", so probably the one with the tall tail, pretty much the same as the G-14 but with the regular hood.

 

Fixed your Typhoon too:

Edited December 13, 2019 by Megalax

[pilotpierre]

Well done, Muchos grassy arse for posting.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

2 hours ago, Megalax said:

We already have a 109G-6. They annouced the G-6 "Late", so probably the one with the tall tail, pretty much the same as the G-14 but with the regular hood.

 

Fixed your Typhoon too:

 

Nope. The G-6 will most likely be a Short Tail with the Erla Haube and Galland Panzer. The late Canopy became the Standard long before the Tall Tail did.

 

As with the Spits Wing Tips, I think the Tail of the 109 will become a Mod. However, the G-6 as far as I know in that Time Period mostly got a Plug In Metal Tail Extension and Rudder, and only with the G-14 was the Wooden Rudder more common.

 

The Tall Tail on the G-6 was only standard Issue with AS or ASM Machines, which also received the smoother Cowling. For the A and AM Machines both Versions of the Tail were common.

 

 

Edited December 13, 2019 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[40plus]

mmmmm, the 410 ?

5 hours ago, dun_aenghus said:

Really hope we don't get the Typhoon with the car doors! Ugly as sin!

 

Well, it's a Typhoon, so ugly just comes by default.

[szelljr]

...waiting for the V-1 Buzz Bomb template  Lol.

[Max_von_Wuthenau]

how could something as graceful as the Spitfire and something as hideous as the Typhoon come from the same people...

[40plus]

21 minutes ago, Max_von_Wuthenau said:

how could something as graceful as the Spitfire and something as hideous as the Typhoon come from the same people...

Spitfire was the exception to the rule of fugly British war birds. Seriously consistent apart from the spitfire.

Edited December 13, 2019 by pfrances

[Motherbrain]

16 minutes ago, Max_von_Wuthenau said:

how could something as graceful as the Spitfire and something as hideous as the Typhoon come from the same people...

 

Don't forget the Mosquito and the Lancaster. Some of the older Hawker biplanes were pretty planes as well.

[Max_von_Wuthenau]

Yes to the Mosquito, no to the Lancaster, but yes to the Halifax, but definitely no to the Skua or Barracuda....

[PatrickAWlson]

1 hour ago, Max_von_Wuthenau said:

how could something as graceful as the Spitfire and something as hideous as the Typhoon come from the same people...

 

I think that's why I like the older Typhoon more than the newer one.  If you're going to go ugly, may as well go full butt ugly.

[Bremspropeller]

It would be cool to have Typhoons with three- and four-bladed propellers.

[Ribbon]

Spit mk.xiv being a collector maybe they can do it like with yak9 and make two variants, the one with cutback fuselage and teardrop canopy (not sure is there difference in wing shape) but everything else seems the same.

Not much work for them and i'm sure it would sell well for BoBp.

[=27=Davesteu]

I simply can't get over parts of the 'Battle of Normandy' planeset.

The V-1 strikes me as the justification of the Spitfire XIV; it's a literal one-shot in terms of gameplay. A Spitfire Mk. IX (Merlin 63, 66, 70) would have been infinitely more useful.
A playable C-47 would be very cool, but the AI-only version is rather pointless considering the famous airdrop was conducted at night.

Use the freed-up resources to develop the important Ju 188 and sell us the Spitfire XIV and Ar 234 B-2 as stand-alone collector planes.

 

 

Bristol and Hawker aircraft are my reason to play RAF. Spitfires aren't my thing.

[Bremspropeller]

3 minutes ago, =27=Davesteu said:

Bristol and Hawker aircraft are my reason to play RAF. Spitfires aren't my thing.

 

+1

 

I wouldn't say no to a Beau...

[Motherbrain]

18 minutes ago, =27=Davesteu said:

I simply can't get over parts of the 'Battle of Normandy' planeset.

The V-1 strikes me as the justification of the Spitfire XIV; it's a literal one-shot in terms of gameplay. A playable C-47 would be very cool, but the AI-only version is rather pointless considering the famous airdrop was conducted at night.

 

 

I'm of the opinion that I don't really care if they add a fricking Boeing 747 as long as its nicely modeled and flyable.

 

I don't really care about game play since MP isn't my thing and with the full mission builder you really have the freedom to do whatever you want. I appreciate planes that maybe are more standalone. Only having planes that fit specific battles is too restrictive IMO.

 

I just don't want any AI only planes. I hate that.

 

The Allies only got an AI only bomber for the BoBP expansion and the poor Germans got squat in terms of bombers. At least we are getting the Mosquito and the Ju88c6 as flyable planes this time around.

Edited December 13, 2019 by Motherbrain

[Megalax]

37 minutes ago, =27=Davesteu said:

 

The V-1 strikes me as the justification of the Spitfire XIV;

 

...and the Typhoon, Tempest and Mosquito. 

 

If we were getting a Gloster Meteor I could see the V-1 as the justification for it, but the XIV has other uses than just diver patrols. Plus its going to be a collector. If you dont want it, dont get it.

Edited December 13, 2019 by Megalax

[=27=Davesteu]

Gameplay includes single-player mode - hunting the V-1 doesn't provide much of it. Nobody cared about the V-1 in First Gen. IL-2 after killing it a few times.

 

I'm interested in a historical air war simulation, not a themed sandbox. Having some super detailed aircraft without historical context isn't for me.

 

16 minutes ago, Megalax said:

the XIV has other uses than just diver patrols. Plus its going to be a collector. If you dont want it, dont get it.

I want it - as a stand-alone (BoBP) collector plane. Earns them more money and frees up a slot in the BoN planeset for a more relevant aircraft like the omnipresent Spitfire IX.

Edited December 13, 2019 by =27=Davesteu

[Fafnir_6]

I always thought it was weird that they had the Spitfire XIV and Ar234B-2 as premium planes for BoN.  They are much more BoBP aircraft.  I would have rather seen a Spitfire IXc (1943/44) or Beaufighter or A-20G and Ju188E or Do217M-1 as premiums for BoN.

 

Cheers,

 

Fafnir_6

 

 

[Max_von_Wuthenau]

Ah yes, the 217 would be a gas

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, Motherbrain said:

 

 

I just don't want any AI only planes. I hate that.

 

 

 

You and others are missing the point of the AI aircraft - we need them.

They don't have time to make them flyable, so I'm grateful for the AI only versions...because I know what they're useful for.

[sevenless]

56 minutes ago, Fafnir_6 said:

 I would have rather seen a Spitfire IXc (1943/44) or Beaufighter or A-20G and Ju188E or Do217M-1 as premiums for BoN.

 

We are aprox. 2 years away from a propable BoN release. Quite a lot can happen until then including decisions for additional collector planes. Time will tell.

[Fafnir_6]

28 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

We are aprox. 2 years away from a propable BoN release. Quite a lot can happen until then including decisions for additional collector planes. Time will tell.

Indeed.  They may have leveraged the popularity of the Griffon Spit and the Dusenbomber to prop up BoN sales (which I have no issue with, in all honesty).  More aircraft will surely follow.

 

Cheers,

 

Fafnir_6

Edited December 13, 2019 by Fafnir_6
grammar

[Pict]

2 hours ago, =27=Davesteu said:

The V-1 strikes me as the justification of the Spitfire XIV; it's a literal one-shot in terms of gameplay.

 

Not at all. Apart from the other aircraft mentioned that were used to intercept the V1's once they were airborne, the V1 launch sites, assembly & storage sites, plus the entire road & rail transport infrastructure that served them were all targets of the highest priority with pretty much everything the allies had that could launch a rocket or drop a bomb being used against them.

 

2 hours ago, Megalax said:

...and the Typhoon, Tempest and Mosquito. 

 

You can also add the Spitfire XII and Mustang III to that list as both were successful in that role.

 

====================

 

Anyhow the V1's initial offensive (against London) was pretty much the German response to the D-Day landings in Normandy, so the V1 is pretty much essential in a D-Day scenario and as can be seen above can exist with many other aircraft than the Spitfire XIV.

 

And shooting them down is fun, I reckon, especially with a slower aircraft. Even a Lancaster crew claimed one 

Edited December 13, 2019 by Pict
Spelling, tweaking etc.

[Megalax]

15 minutes ago, Pict said:

 

 

You can also add the Spitfire XII and Mustang III to that list as both were successful in that role.

 

 

 

True, but I was only naming the aircraft we were getting. I guess the P-51B/C will stand in great as a Mustang III.

[357th_KW]

3 hours ago, =27=Davesteu said:

A playable C-47 would be very cool, but the AI-only version is rather pointless considering the famous airdrop was conducted at night.

 

 

C-47s were used during the day for Operation Market Garden, which prompted a large scale air battle for a few days.  Multiple 47s were lost to Luftwaffe fighters.  It would certainly be nice to have them be flyable, hopefully they will be eventually.  But they won’t be pointless from the perspective of building historical missions.

[Ribbon]

21 minutes ago, KW_1979 said:

 

C-47s were used during the day for Operation Market Garden, which prompted a large scale air battle for a few days.  Multiple 47s were lost to Luftwaffe fighters.  It would certainly be nice to have them be flyable, hopefully they will be eventually.  But they won’t be pointless from the perspective of building historical missions.

Towing gliders too, so you'll need glider as a c47mod!

Edited December 13, 2019 by EAF_Ribbon

[Gambit21]

21 minutes ago, KW_1979 said:

 

C-47s were used during the day for Operation Market Garden, 

 

They were also omnipresent in the ETO in general, used for transportation/supply purposes. Were parked at and operated from Allied fighter airbases, etc.

Thus an AI version is far from "pointless" and is welcome and much needed scenery.

 

The lack of vision by some is astounding.

[Hoss]

38 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

They were also omnipresent in the ETO in general, used for transportation/supply purposes. Were parked at and operated from Allied fighter airbases, etc.

Thus an AI version is far from "pointless" and is welcome and much needed scenery.

 

The lack of vision by some is astounding.

Jim 'Wash Out' Pfaffenbach: It's my eyes. I've got walleye vision.

Pete 'Dead Meat' Thompson: Isn't there something that can be done?

Jim 'Wash Out' Pfaffenbach: Well, there's a delicate corneal inversion procedure... a  multioptipupiloptomy. But, in order to keep from damaging the eye sockets, they've got to go in through the rectum. Ain't no man going to take that route with me!

Edited December 13, 2019 by 361st_Hoss

[Motherbrain]

58 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

An AI version is far from "pointless" and is welcome and much needed scenery.

 

The lack of vision by some is astounding.

 

I for one actually want to fly the planes in my airplane flying game...

[Gambit21]

Just now, Motherbrain said:

 

I for one actually want to fly the planes in my airplane flying game...

 

I for one actually want to be able to create an immersive environment for the planes that CAN be flown...this means scenery, and often this means AI aircraft.

I'd rather have an AI only C-47, or B-25 flying around that adds to the scenery/player environment, than NO C-47 or B-25, or B-26. If flyable was the requirement, I wouldn't have them at all...which again is the point that seems to rocket over the heads of some at a high mach number.

[Motherbrain]

1 minute ago, Gambit21 said:

 

I for one actually want to be able to create an immersive environment for the planes that CAN be flown...this means scenery, and often this means AI aircraft.

 

Oh please, they can make two versions of the He-111 flyable, two versions of the Pe-2 flyable, and a Ju53 flyable, the first two don't even have any airworthy examples anymore.

 

But they can't model a plane that is still being used to this day, and is still flying by the dozens, and is iconic? That's asking too much? That's too tough? ?

 

 

[Gambit21]

Just now, Motherbrain said:

 

Oh please, they can make two versions of the He-111 flyable, two versions of the Pe-2 flyable, and a Ju53 flyable, the first two don't even have any airworthy examples anymore.

 

But they can't model a plane that is still being used to this day, and is still flying by the dozens, and is iconic? That's asking too much? That's too tough? ?

 

 

 

I'm not saying it wouldn't be great to have, or useful, or desirable.

I'm saying that having it AI only is nevertheless far from pointless...stop moving the goal posts.