Battle over Europe

[BlitzPig_EL]

The Allies need a real "medium" bomber or two to be player flyable.  This would help a lot I think, as would a later version of the A20, or an A26 for that matter.

[CUJO_1970]

Germany needs it's antiquated bomber fleet brought up to date. BMW801s and Jumo 213s.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mazex]

Or "Bombers over Europe", "Battle of the 8:th Air Force" or similar...

 

I highjacked some other thread but I would really love this as a module. I guess others might want to dream about it at least

 

So - the PTO would naturally be great and really is the major missing module... And many of us would pay a lot to get it. But there are so many assets in the form of ships, new terrains, buildings, ground assets like trucks and tanks etc... And the old dogs here know the problems that are not to be mentioned about the issues that the old IL2 team faced after forgetting to write the legal texts correctly with the old 1946 version of the PTO.

 

Even though it would be nice with some late war Yak-3s, LA-7s etc for a late war Eastern front - we already have 3 modules for that. They could be collectors planes instead? And with my proposal below they could naturally join in over Berlin for the last days of the Reich.

 

And yes, Africa or the Mediterranean would be fun. But there is the old Fusion team doing a rather good job with that.

 

But what really could be a module of it's own rather easily is the allied Bomber campaign with the 8th air force and the Lancasters of Harris. The big obstacle being the core engine allegedly not handling four engines might be some work. But needed and it's really time to fix that now for a simulator that is the premier WW2 air combat simulation.. And naturally the big bombers are hard to model. But really - do we need all the crew locations and interiors? Sure we want them - but I can live with a B-17, Lancaster where I can only use the pilots position, the rear gunner, the top gunner and the bombardier position. So basically like the twin engined bombers we have today. So many images of B-17s show the waist gunners or the ball turret, but who would really fly a long mission as a waist gunner. Who really flys any mission as a gunner? Honestly? So skip them for later...

 

And yes - we need maps that are suitable. So how about extending the Bodenplatte map to the east, facing the fact that we really do not need details down low over central Germany. Most of the fights happened high up with the bombers, or down low around the airbases where vulchers stalked landing 262s etc. So skip the countryside details. It would be a huge map for IL2. But just skip the details. Major roads, lakes, rivers and forests. Big and rather generic cities with the right shape with factories nearby. We won't fly low over Berlin to see the biergartens. We can use another sim that is great for flight sight seeing if desired...

 

And then a suggestion for the aircraft. A number of them already exists in other forms. And as said above. Only 4 positions possible to crew in the heavies is really OK...

 

Standard

* B-17

* B-25 as flyable

* Avro Lancaster

* Vickers Wellington Mk X or Handley Page Halifax

* Bf 110 G4

* Fw 190 A5 (R11)

* Ju 88 G (6)

* Do 217

Collectors

* He 219

* B-24

 

Map as posted below - or smaller as it really is rather big. But I'm just dreaming here. And ignore the pins. Places I visited just before the pandemic on a road trip to Germany. I really recommend the top pin just north of Kiel in Laboe, where they have the only existing Type VII submarine on a beach that you can look around inside...

 

Edited December 12, 2022 by mazex

[Wardog5711]

Sorry folks, I went to merge the last post into the existing thread and it changed the title.

 

 

[ROCKET_KNUT]

19 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

While the "It´s-never-enough!!!"-fraction has to make do with their "antiquated bomber fleet" of 234s and different versions of 88s and 111s, western allies can choose from a wide  array of exactly... ummm... one light bomber from 1942... ??

So, an A-26C and a Mk XVI Mossie? Any day of the week!!!

[Noisemaker]

4 minutes ago, ROCKET_KNUT said:

While the "It´s-never-enough!!!"-fraction has to make do with their "antiquated bomber fleet" of 234s and different versions of 88s and 111s, western allies can choose from a wide  array of exactly... ummm... one light bomber from 1942... ??

So, an A-26C and a Mk XVI Mossie? Any day of the week!!!

I've always hated fractions!  Especially odd numbered ones, like 1/3, the ultimate it's never never enough.  0.333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333... ad infinitum.
 

[Strewth]

14 minutes ago, Noisemaker said:

I've always hated fractions!  Especially odd numbered ones, like 1/3, the ultimate it's never never enough.  0.333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333... ad infinitum.
 

Try dissecting Pi (π) then........................
3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510 etc
No plain and simple 3's in this one and it goes on forever and ever and ever.

[CUJO_1970]

2 hours ago, ROCKET_KNUT said:

While the "It´s-never-enough!!!"-fraction has to make do with their "antiquated bomber fleet" of 234s and different versions of 88s and 111s, western allies can choose from a wide  array of exactly... ummm... one light bomber from 1942... ??

So, an A-26C and a Mk XVI Mossie? Any day of the week!!!

 

Oh, so wanting (gasp!) post 1942 Ju-88s added to the [flight sim] makes someone part of some "It's-never-enough!!!"- [fraction?] huh? That's great to know, ROCKET_KNUT. Did anyone here bemoan the addition of any more WAllied bombers? No, they didn't. I'm fine with the addition of more 'other side' bombers - bring them on. You simply can't do the same, lol.

 

Believe it or not it's OK to want something added to the sim without bemoaning what others want. Your "fraction" should give it a try sometime.

 

 

[MiGCap]

8 hours ago, mazex said:

Or "Bombers over Europe", "Battle of the 8:th Air Force" or similar...

 

I highjacked some other thread but I would really love this as a module. I guess others might want to dream about it at least

 

So - the PTO would naturally be great and really is the major missing module... And many of us would pay a lot to get it. But there are so many assets in the form of ships, new terrains, buildings, ground assets like trucks and tanks etc... And the old dogs here know the problems that are not to be mentioned about the issues that the old IL2 team faced after forgetting to write the legal texts correctly with the old 1946 version of the PTO.

 

Even though it would be nice with some late war Yak-3s, LA-7s etc for a late war Eastern front - we already have 3 modules for that. They could be collectors planes instead? And with my proposal below they could naturally join in over Berlin for the last days of the Reich.

 

And yes, Africa or the Mediterranean would be fun. But there is the old Fusion team doing a rather good job with that.

 

But what really could be a module of it's own rather easily is the allied Bomber campaign with the 8th air force and the Lancasters of Harris. The big obstacle being the core engine allegedly not handling four engines might be some work. But needed and it's really time to fix that now for a simulator that is the premier WW2 air combat simulation.. And naturally the big bombers are hard to model. But really - do we need all the crew locations and interiors? Sure we want them - but I can live with a B-17, Lancaster where I can only use the pilots position, the rear gunner, the top gunner and the bombardier position. So basically like the twin engined bombers we have today. So many images of B-17s show the waist gunners or the ball turret, but who would really fly a long mission as a waist gunner. Who really flys any mission as a gunner? Honestly? So skip them for later...

 

And yes - we need maps that are suitable. So how about extending the Bodenplatte map to the east, facing the fact that we really do not need details down low over central Germany. Most of the fights happened high up with the bombers, or down low around the airbases where vulchers stalked landing 262s etc. So skip the countryside details. It would be a huge map for IL2. But just skip the details. Major roads, lakes, rivers and forests. Big and rather generic cities with the right shape with factories nearby. We won't fly low over Berlin to see the biergartens. We can use another sim that is great for flight sight seeing if desired...

 

And then a suggestion for the aircraft. A number of them already exists in other forms. And as said above. Only 4 positions possible to crew in the heavies is really OK...

 

Standard

* B-17

* B-25 as flyable

* Avro Lancaster

* Vickers Wellington Mk X or Handley Page Halifax

* Bf 110 G4

* Fw 190 A5 (R11)

* Ju 88 G (6)

* Do 217

Collectors

* He 219

* B-24

 

Map as posted below - or smaller as it really is rather big. But I'm just dreaming here. And ignore the pins. Places I visited just before the pandemic on a road trip to Germany. I really recommend the top pin just north of Kiel in Laboe, where they have the only existing Type VII submarine on a beach that you can look around inside...

 

 

 

Nice map, but ist should get further 40 Kilometers to the North up to the Danish border and include the fighter fields Husum (just visible on the very northern edge of Your map at the North Sea) as well as Leck and Flensburg, the last airfields of the Luftwaffe in May 1945.

[LukeFF]

6 hours ago, ROCKET_KNUT said:

While the "It´s-never-enough!!!"-fraction has to make do with their "antiquated bomber fleet" of 234s and different versions of 88s and 111s, western allies can choose from a wide  array of exactly... ummm... one light bomber from 1942... ??

So, an A-26C and a Mk XVI Mossie? Any day of the week!!!

 

Yep, it would be a great choice for late war bomber ops, plus it was a major player in the Korean War, fighting from the very beginning to the last day of the conflict. 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

23 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

Germany needs it's antiquated bomber fleet brought up to date. BMW801s and Jumo 213s.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not before we have a flyable B-25/26, no way.

3 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

 

Believe it or not it's OK to want something added to the sim without bemoaning what others want. Your "fraction" should give it a try sometime.

 

 

True, but development priority should be on a B-25/26 first before any more Axis bombers are added. This is a major, glaring hole c9nsidering we just got 2 more Axis bombers with Normandy.

[czech693]

Later models of the B-25, B-26 and A-20 would be better in my opinion (flyable ones).  The A-26 had issues.  John Henebry of the Third Attack Group in the Pacific got to test the first models and they were impressed with the larger bomb load, range, and firepower over the A-20G.  But, the speed was the same as the A-20G and only 10 mph faster than their B-25 strafers.  The view was blocked by the big, long engine nacelles and the cockpit was not very handy with the pilot on the left side (it was a single pilot aircraft).  Henebry said it was like flying in a slit trench.  I remeber flying one in an old sim way back and I had trouble with the long engines blocking the view.  Henebry got sent back to DC to report with a list of 32 deficiencies.  It was Hap Arnold's baby so it get built replacing the A-20.  Plus it came out late in the ETO. 

[ROCKET_KNUT]

5 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

Oh, so wanting (gasp!) post 1942 Ju-88s added to the [flight sim] makes someone part of some "It's-never-enough!!!"- [fraction?] huh? That's great to know, ROCKET_KNUT. Did anyone here bemoan the addition of any more WAllied bombers? No, they didn't. I'm fine with the addition of more 'other side' bombers - bring them on. You simply can't do the same, lol.

 

Believe it or not it's OK to want something added to the sim without bemoaning what others want. Your "fraction" should give it a try sometime.

 

 

context

[sevenless]

P-61 Black Widow of 422nd and 425th squadron. Buzz bomb hunting, night fighting and intruder missions from 07/44 - 05/45 in the ETO. A wonderful plane.

 

Northrop P-61 Black Widow | Plane-Encyclopedia

 

"... proved faster at all altitudes, outturned the Mossie at every altitude and by a big margin and far surpassed the Mossie in rate of climb."^[14]

 

[14]  "The United States Army Air Forces in World War II - Developing a True Night Fighter". usaaf.net. Archived from the original on 26 January 2004. Retrieved 18 April 2013.

 

Edited December 13, 2022 by sevenless

[CountZero]

8 hours ago, MiGCap said:

 

 

Nice map, but ist should get further 40 Kilometers to the North up to the Danish border and include the fighter fields Husum (just visible on the very northern edge of Your map at the North Sea) as well as Leck and Flensburg, the last airfields of the Luftwaffe in May 1945.

Its fantasie that will never happend in this game, so why not extend it by 100km west also to have more bomber bases...

 

[danielprates]

1 hour ago, sevenless said:

P-61 Black Widow of 422nd and 425th squadron. Buzz bomb hunting, night fighting and intruder missions from 07/44 - 05/45 in the ETO. A wonderful plane.

 

Northrop P-61 Black Widow | Plane-Encyclopedia

 

"... proved faster at all altitudes, outturned the Mossie at every altitude and by a big margin and far surpassed the Mossie in rate of climb."^[14]

 

[14]  "The United States Army Air Forces in World War II - Developing a True Night Fighter". usaaf.net. Archived from the original on 26 January 2004. Retrieved 18 April 2013.

 

 

I would love the black widow same as I would love any german night fighter. But that would require some brand new game mechanics to deal with radar operation, and just as important, new navigation tools, since we must also land the planes at some point. At the very least a more functional radio nav mechanic and better dialogue with ground control. Things that il21946 did well enough btw.

[Lusekofte]

43 minutes ago, danielprates said:

 

I would love the black widow same as I would love any german night fighter. But that would require some brand new game mechanics to deal with radar operation, and just as important, new navigation tools, since we must also land the planes at some point. At the very least a more functional radio nav mechanic and better dialogue with ground control. Things that il21946 did well enough btw.

Should not be too hard to use [O] together with altitude info. I for one would do with anything remotely useful in this regard 

you have this radar thing going on in map. It’s delayed in a radar sort of thing so you need only altitude. 

[danielprates]

5 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

Should not be too hard to use [O] together with altitude info. I for one would do with anything remotely useful in this regard 

you have this radar thing going on in map. It’s delayed in a radar sort of thing so you need only altitude. 

 

Yeah, we are close to gaving that, if you consider the ground work laid down. Who knows. Maybe we'll see it yet.

[SharkWolf2022]

16 hours ago, czech693 said:

Later models of the B-25, B-26 and A-20 would be better in my opinion (flyable ones).  The A-26 had issues.  John Henebry of the Third Attack Group in the Pacific got to test the first models and they were impressed with the larger bomb load, range, and firepower over the A-20G.  But, the speed was the same as the A-20G and only 10 mph faster than their B-25 strafers.  The view was blocked by the big, long engine nacelles and the cockpit was not very handy with the pilot on the left side (it was a single pilot aircraft).  Henebry said it was like flying in a slit trench.  I remeber flying one in an old sim way back and I had trouble with the long engines blocking the view.  Henebry got sent back to DC to report with a list of 32 deficiencies.  It was Hap Arnold's baby so it get built replacing the A-20.  Plus it came out late in the ETO. 

Mosquito B.XVI would be an easy addition for an allied Bomber!

[FliegerAD]

On 12/13/2022 at 4:06 AM, drewm3i-VR said:

Not before we have a flyable B-25/26, no way.

 

This is not a competetion. Allied and Axis plane sets do not take away from each other. They are done seperately, five aircraft each.

The choice of introducing a, say, Ju 388 has zero impact on the Allies getting a medium bomber. If you want that Allied medium bomber, complaing about Axis bombers won't help in the least.

 

Also, given that attackers and bombers are pretty much the most exiting thing left unexplored of the Luftwaffe's arsenal, the wish for them is not exactly surprising. I for one am more interested in the advanced Ju 88-line than I am in another Bf 109 variant.

And - shocker! - just as well I am more exited about an Allied bomber than about another Spitfire. My dream would be the Lockheed Ventura:

 

[easterling77]

With the introduction of Mosquito, 410 and the beautiful C6, I hope the door stays open for more two engined Bomber/Attackers like the

Ventura, Beaufighter or A20-G.

I love the "Heavy Hitters"

Edited December 15, 2022 by easterling77

[BlitzPig_EL]

The Ventura was the forgotten bomber of the Pacific campaign.  It was a good machine and deserves to be recreated in the sim when we get to the Pacific.

[Avimimus]

On 12/11/2022 at 10:53 PM, CUJO_1970 said:

Germany needs it's antiquated bomber fleet brought up to date. BMW801s and Jumo 213s.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aside from its heavy defensive armament (e.g. 2x20mm and 2x13mm), the thing that is really striking about the Ju-188 is the cockpit view... how can one not desire that for sight-seeing? I almost reinstalled FS:SDOE simply because it has a good Ju-188 cockpit.

 

 

[PatrickAWlson]

Me323.  Let's bypass 4 engines and go straight to 6!

[Irishratticus72]

10 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Me323.  Let's bypass 4 engines and go straight to 6!

I'll see your six, and raise you two.

[ST_Catchov]

1 hour ago, Irishratticus72 said:

1 hour ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Me323.  Let's bypass 4 engines and go straight to 6!

Expand  

I'll see your six, and raise you two.

 

You knew this was coming! I'm sorry. But then, flying boats rock!

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

 

I'll settle for two...

[Lusekofte]

amateurs

Edited December 15, 2022 by Lusekofte

[Trooper117]

12 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

 

I'll settle for two...

 

Yep, Korea here we come!...

[Avimimus]

14 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

amateurs

 

Those are abominations. However it is worth noting that the Soviets actually built a Zerstörer version of the TB-3 with three forward firing 76mm cannon. I actually modded it into Il-2 1946 but got too busy to add a gunsight and rework the nose - so it was never released.

 

P.S. If I recall correctly final armament was considered to be 1x76mm and 2x152mm recoilless rifles.

[oc2209]

On 12/6/2022 at 1:36 PM, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Honestly, please, try to look at it from someone else's perspective for once. Your arguments aren't as perfect and sustainable as you seem to think they are. Many of the things you accuse others of are equally applicable to your own arguments, including in particular the logical fallacies. Moreover, there are no "winners" or "losers" here, and even if there were, it's certainly not you who decides who is who. Let's not go back to the point where you called everyone who disagreed with you an "annoying purist *****", shall we?

 

I fully expect this to fall on deaf ears, but I implore you to actually do this. Try to understand why some people disagree with you, and don't be derogatory or supremacist about it in the meantime. Many people have different things they like or dislike, and as a result different opinions about where they'd like this game to go. It doesn't automatically make your opinion the only "true" one while any dissenting opinion only serves to "obfuscate" your truth by "shoddy logic". Try to approach things from the other side, and perhaps you'll learn a thing or two about your own viewpoint in the meantime. If there's anything that kills any debate, it's refusing to look for some common ground.

 

But yeah, this comment is most likely only gonna earn me more hate ?

 

I left this thread because it was pointless to continue. But I come back to see somebody still couldn't just leave well enough alone.

 

I don't let someone get the last word, if their statement is erroneous. Which this one is.

 

I like how I'm supposed to be the better man here, when nobody else is meeting me halfway. I didn't attack Gambit personally, and yet he called me inane. I get derogatory laugh emojis aimed at me, which I don't reciprocate. Don't pretend like the laugh emojis aren't hostile and passive-aggressive. It's a way for people to be abusive/mocking while still looking like 'nice guys.'

 

Your assertion that I'm the only one breaking politeness etiquette is patently false. Am I abusive sometimes? Yeah. Have other people here treated me like crap, unprovoked? Yeah. Goes around, comes around. Let's not pretend like this is a perfectly safe space on the internet for the thin-skinned.

 

As for the part I bolded, specifically logical fallacies: you are also entirely wrong there, as well.

 

This is the way the thread discussion developed (I hate doing a recap, but you don't leave me much choice, since you're weaving a false narrative):

 

OP asked why some people resist the idea of an Eastern Front module being made. I called out the anti-EF crowd as having a low opinion of Russian planes and/or having anti-Russian bias. They responded with "I have a lot of Yak friends" and "I once flew a LaGG five years ago"; their position thus pivoted from "I don't ever want to see another EF module again" because that appears to be nakedly biased. They settled on "don't make an EF module because it's commercially suicidal, release it as collector content instead."

 

The entire anti-EF argument was therefore reduced to "nobody will buy a regular EF module." Based on nothing but supposition, mind you.

 

The proposed solution of selling future EF content exclusively as collector items, is absolutely illogical by any estimation of logic. This is not my opinion. This is fact, based on basic economic principles of demand. You can't take a product that supposedly nobody wants to buy, and then jack up the aggregate price for said product to nearly double what a regular module would sell for, and expect that to have a good financial return.

 

Releasing, say, 3 collector planes and a collector map for the same total price as a conventional module with a map and 10 planes, is absurdly more expensive per unit, and commensurately less attractive to consumers. It doesn't solve the supposed problem of nobody wanting to buy EF content. It grossly exacerbates the problem.

 

And no, I will not respond to anything after this point. Don't worry moderators, no need to lock the thread again. I've restated my position in a non-confrontational manner, and nothing remains to be said.

[LukeFF]

Dude, let it go already. The horse has been beaten into a pulp by this point. 

[oc2209]

18 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Dude, let it go already. The horse has been beaten into a pulp by this point. 

 

Tell that to @AEthelraedUnraed.

 

I'm not talking to myself.

 

At least my post is on-topic. Unlike most of the last page.

 

*Edit: I just blocked Luke. Now I won't respond to anything.

Edited December 17, 2022 by oc2209

[Wardog5711]

On this forum, on-topic is a relative and often meaningless term. ?

I've left this thread alone since nobody here has any idea what the new module is going to be and most are having fun or stressing over it and are pulling stuff out of their tailpipe.

But no matter which direction the ownership choses to take their sim, somebody will be happy and somebody unhappy. Life goes on. 

And while this forum is populated with some passionate and talented individuals, it does not represent the total player base.  

So, everybody can keep guessing and have some fun, or not. 

 

[Ram399]

23 hours ago, oc2209 said:

I'm not talking to myself.

[oc2209]

1 hour ago, Ram399 said:

[picture was here]

 

Funny how people want me to shut up, but at the same time they refuse to stop picking at the scab. It's so important to get one more dig in at my expense.

 

For all the heat I've taken in this thread, at least I argue the point. I don't make inflammatory 'u mad?' comments, which is what the above amounts to.

 

You don't like reading my posts? Then block me. Problem solved. Seriously. Blocking is the best solution, once you realize that certain people aren't going to respect anything that you say, because they disdain you.

 

The substance of my point--that it's unfair for fans of Russian planes to possibly never get to fly late war models while the other major nations have had late war planes for years now--that substance has been conveniently lost in a deluge of personal antipathy towards me, rather than my argument. Said argument is infallible. Not because I'm brilliant, but because the unfairness is just so blatant.

 

Yet, even the mere mention of another Eastern Front module gets this level of blowback. Demands to either never make EF content again, or release it at grossly inflated collector pricing. Which further compounds the inherent unfairness I highlighted. Fans of Russian planes either deserve to never get late war planes, or pay double what fans of other planes sets paid to get their late war content. That's the substance of the anti-EF arguments in this thread.

 

And I'm the one with the problem, because I adamantly refuse to accept that argument as valid or fair.

[Gambit21]

[MisterSmith]

I don't feel the thread requires locking quite yet.

 

But it's time to move on from the personal arguments. It is fair for both pro and con camps to state their case without it being (taken as) something personal. Please tone it down and have a drink (or stop drinking) as necessary. If it continues, however, I will swing the ban hammer like the Mighty Thor at anyone left standing in the room.

 

You have been notified...............

 

Smith

[Noisemaker]

17 hours ago, MisterSmith said:

If it continues, however, I will swing the ban hammer like the Mighty Thor at anyone left standing in the room.

 

You have been notified...............

 

Smith

I wanna be your ban hammer
Why don't you call my name?
Ah oh, let me be your ban hammer
This will be my testimony
Yeah (yeah)

 

Ban....  Ban...

[Trooper117]

That's not a ban hammer... that's just a girly yellow mallet.

Thor wouldn't be seen dead holding that thing... don't touch it Smith, you'll never be able to look anyone in the eye again.