1/JSpan_Wind75 Posted July 23 Posted July 23 I say... If it's possible to make the B-17 Super Fortress AI Aces or have them shoot like in the movie Masters of the Air to make it difficult for those of us who fly in the Luftwaffe to break into formations, we can include them as AIs in online missions on competition servers and add them to formations of 100 aircraft crossing the skies of France and Germany. Is this possible? On the other hand, to compensate, a small map of the English Channel was made to carry out missions with 100 Ju-88s, Heinkel He 177s (The Pencil), which was widely used in the Battle of Britain, and the Bf-110 for the enjoyment of English, Polish, Canadian, New Zealand, Australian, and other pilots. Or perhaps the latter can be done with the other SIM from the 1C group of the Dover Cliffs. 1
Aapje Posted July 23 Posted July 23 The IL-2 Korea engine is going to support large bomber formations. 1
1/JSpan_Wind75 Posted July 23 Author Posted July 23 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Aapje said: The IL-2 Korea engine is going to support large bomber formations. But that will be, if I'm not mistaken, to support the B-29, right? I don't know if B-17s were used in Korea. 🙄 But that will be, if I'm not mistaken, to support the B-29, right? I don't know if B-17s were used in Korea. In Europe, they've always flown with Bf-109s and FW-190s, and occasionally with Ju-88s and Bf-110s, but in Korea, I'll be flying on the US side. Edited July 23 by 1/JSpan_Wind75
Aapje Posted July 23 Posted July 23 1 hour ago, 1/JSpan_Wind75 said: But that will be, if I'm not mistaken, to support the B-29, right? I don't know if B-17s were used in Korea. The Korea engine will be used for the Pacific, where the B-17 was used. So you might see it then. But they won't add this to the GB engine. 1
1/JSpan_Wind75 Posted July 23 Author Posted July 23 (edited) I hope he succeeds because it's 25 years since IL-2 was created. The best World War II (WWII) simulator, and now we're moving on to the Korean Front (1953). Yay!!! I made this 25th anniversary stamp, and I also made another one. Edited July 23 by 1/JSpan_Wind75 1
BlitzPig_EL Posted July 24 Posted July 24 The B-17 was the Flying Fortress The B-29 was the Super Fortress. If you want to fly a large four engine bomber, I think it's safe to say you will have to look elsewhere. 1
1/JSpan_Wind75 Posted July 24 Author Posted July 24 5 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said: The B-17 was the Flying Fortress The B-29 was the Super Fortress. If you want to fly a large four engine bomber, I think it's safe to say you will have to look elsewhere. Well, I hope that for the KOREA campaign there will be either B-17s or B-29s or whatever they are going to do the bombings, with the P-80 or with the Grumman A-6 Intruder was a mid-wing twin-engine attack aircraft, designed by the American company Grumman Aerospace. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_de_Corea
Avimimus Posted July 24 Posted July 24 The original Il-2 (fully patched) has the B-24, Pe-8, TB-3, and He-177 flyable... all four engined types.
Traffic Posted July 24 Posted July 24 5 hours ago, 1/JSpan_Wind75 said: Well, I hope that for the KOREA campaign there will be either B-17s or B-29s or whatever they are going to do the bombings, with the P-80 or with the Grumman A-6 Intruder was a mid-wing twin-engine attack aircraft, designed by the American company Grumman Aerospace. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_de_Corea B29s were used, as B17s were scrapped after 1945. The A6 Intruder is a Vietnam era Naval attack aircraft and wasn't even on the drawing board during Korea (1950-1953). It had its first prototype flight 1960, so you're at least a decade off. 1
MaxPower Posted July 27 Posted July 27 On 7/24/2025 at 9:55 AM, Avimimus said: The original Il-2 (fully patched) has the B-24, Pe-8, TB-3, and He-177 flyable... all four engined types. I actually didn't know that 1946 had the He-177 and I played that game all the damn time back in the day!
1/JSpan_Wind75 Posted July 27 Author Posted July 27 9 hours ago, MaxPower said: ¡En realidad no sabía que en 1946 había un He-177 y yo jugaba a ese juego todo el tiempo en aquel entonces! Hello MaxPower, No, there has never been a Heinkel "The Cigar," which was the name given to the twin-engine aircraft similar to the Bf-110 that is part of the IL-2, a specific Heinkel He 177 Greif (1,180 actual aircraft built). But they were used in the Spanish Civil War. For the Luftwaffe, the Spanish Civil War was training grounds for the great pilots who came to fly there. But I don't know if there are He 177s on the cliffs of Dover. Se trataba de un avión bombardero pesado de largo alcance y con una alta capacidad en cuanto a número de bombas que podía transportar, se fabricaron más de un millar. Heinkel He 162 (170 aviones construidos): Fue el modelo de avión a reacción fabricado por Heinkel, pero solo se produjeron menos de dos centenas, debido al uso del otro avión a reacción, el Messerschmitt Me 262. I've also noticed, and this worries me, that on some online servers, it is allowed to shoot at parachute jumpers, which happened after the real war, after the Allies started shooting at Luftwaffe paratroopers. It is true that "war is war" as many war crimes were committed on the island of Crete and after the Battle of Crimea, including the executions of the Alikians,[17] the Kondomari Massacre[18] and the destruction of Kandanos.[19] Several Luftwaffe divisions, including the 1st Parachute Division, the 2nd Parachute Division, the 4th Parachute Division, the 19th Field Division, the 20th Field Division, and the 1st Panzer-Fallschirm Division, committed war crimes in Italy and murdered hundreds of civilians and military personnel. The Russians also started shooting at everything that moved. I have seen TV reports where Yankee pilots were shooting at defenseless Luftwaffe paratroopers and the other way around, too.
Avimimus Posted July 27 Posted July 27 A couple of things: (1) Shooting at paratroopers (or defenceless troops) is not a war crime if those troops are not surrendering and may be about to continue to use their arms. This was always legal. You can familiarise yourself with the Hague Convention, the Geneva Convention, and the various interpretations coming out of the tripartite classification found in Article 6 of the Nuremberg charter. These are all available online. (2) The 'flying pencil' is not the He-177. The He-177 entered service in 1942. The Spanish Civil War officially ended in 1939. The aircraft in the Spanish Civil War were early models of the Do-17. I'm not sure about the confusion, but I suspect you might be using ChatGPT or another LLM? I highly recommend returning to actual books (or websites) for accurate information. 3
MaxPower Posted July 27 Posted July 27 Yeah why drown me in a barrage of spurious AI slop when you can just you can just copy and paste the whole Wikipedia page. Still spurious at times but at least it's reviewed.
1/JSpan_Wind75 Posted July 27 Author Posted July 27 7 hours ago, Avimimus said: A couple of things: (1) Shooting at paratroopers (or defenceless troops) is not a war crime if those troops are not surrendering and may be about to continue to use their arms. This was always legal. You can familiarise yourself with the Hague Convention, the Geneva Convention, and the various interpretations coming out of the tripartite classification found in Article 6 of the Nuremberg charter. These are all available online. (2) The 'flying pencil' is not the He-177. The He-177 entered service in 1942. The Spanish Civil War officially ended in 1939. The aircraft in the Spanish Civil War were early models of the Do-17. I'm not sure about the confusion, but I suspect you might be using ChatGPT or another LLM? I highly recommend returning to actual books (or websites) for accurate information. Hello friend, I don't usually use TPC Chat unless it's for very basic things. What I do use is the professional English spell checker. Although in languages you don't master well, you'll always have mistakes, unless you can keep it very simple in Spanish without "idioms," taglines, or other resources. The Luftwaffe's "pencil " was used in the Spanish Civil War. In fact, it was used in the bombing of Guernica. They called it the "pencil" because it was so long and thin, and it looked like one from the ground. However, it's possible it was the Dornier and not the Heinkel. And this is what Microsoft TPC Chat tells me: What were the war tactics used in the bombing of Guernica? The bombing of Guernica by the German Condor Legion and the Italian Legionary Air Force on April 26, 1937, was an unprecedented military experiment. These were the main tactics used: 🎯 Carpet bombing (saturation) Explosive and incendiary bombs were dropped in successive waves for more than three hours. The objective was not military, but rather to systematically destroy the urban center and spread terror among the civilian population. 🔥 Use of incendiary bombs More than 5,000 magnesium and thermite bombs were dropped, designed to cause uncontrollable fires. These bombs reached temperatures of up to 2,760°C, making fires difficult to extinguish. 🚀 Coordinated wave attacks More than 40 bombers and fighters participated, attacking in staggered groups from different bases. The waves allowed chaos and destruction to continue for hours, giving civilians no respite. 👥 Machine-gunning of civilians Fighters such as the Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Fiat CR.32 flew low to fire at people fleeing through the streets and fields. 🧪 Total War Rehearsal The bombing was a tactical test for the Luftwaffe, anticipating methods later used in World War II. The effectiveness of different types of bombs and coordination between squadrons were evaluated. 🕰️ Strategic timing It was carried out on market day, when the city was busiest, to maximize the psychological and human impact. This attack marked a turning point in military history, introducing the concept of total war against the civilian population. If you'd like, I can help you turn this information into an infographic or a narrative. Would you like to? 5 hours ago, MaxPower said: Sí, ¿por qué ahogarme en un aluvión de basura falsa de IA cuando puedes simplemente copiar y pegar toda la página de Wikipedia? A veces sigue siendo falsa, pero al menos está revisada. Hi friend, I wouldn't trust the "WIKI LECHES" too much either. Everyone can correct it, and people are no longer willing to work for free. Best regards to everyone, and thanks for your opinion.
Avimimus Posted July 27 Posted July 27 The difference is that the wikipedia has multiple citations (i.e. it refers to multiple published books and tells you which one it is using). This allows it to combine evidence from multiple sources in a transparent way. For comparison: Bombing of Guernica - Wikipedia or Aerial bombardment and international law - Wikipedia In contrast, the chatbot's summary of the same subject doesn't refer to evidence to support its claims. If you are going to discuss war crimes in the forums, please (1) provide a reference to which rule is being violated (e.g. clauses in the Hague conventions, Geneva accords, other published regulations etc.) and (2) provide a source which cites evidence. This keeps the discussion factual and grounded.
MaxPower Posted July 28 Posted July 28 Yeah but we were talking about the He-177 remember? The only reason we're talking about the Do-17 is because some rando chatbot hallucinated it into the discussion. If I wanted to talk to the chatbot I would go to the website and log in.
1/JSpan_Wind75 Posted July 28 Author Posted July 28 19 hours ago, Avimimus said: The difference is that the wikipedia has multiple citations (i.e. it refers to multiple published books and tells you which one it is using). This allows it to combine evidence from multiple sources in a transparent way. For comparison: Bombing of Guernica - Wikipedia or Aerial bombardment and international law - Wikipedia In contrast, the chatbot's summary of the same subject doesn't refer to evidence to support its claims. If you are going to discuss war crimes in the forums, please (1) provide a reference to which rule is being violated (e.g. clauses in the Hague conventions, Geneva accords, other published regulations etc.) and (2) provide a source which cites evidence. This keeps the discussion factual and grounded. En estos foros está totalmente prohibido debatir sobre temas reales de la Guerra sea la Guerra que sea ya que por ejemplo en los servidores públicos y en los foros por ejemplo habrá personas que viven intensamente la Guerra de UCRANIA, y a su vez creo que se conocen muy bien pues, vienen del foro ruso que es mucho más activo que el internacional, sea del bando que sea estos “hilos” se pueden “torcer” mucho. Así que prefiero no contestarte a estos temas de los “Acuerdos que nunca se llevaron a cavo” Un saludo cordial y dejemos la guerra real para los “POLITICOS” que ya es suficiente. Yo, por ejemplo con el tema de las guerras reales donde siempre pagan el pato los mismos: Los “NIÑOS y LOS ABUELOS” 19 hours ago, MaxPower said: Yeah but we were talking about the He-177 remember? The only reason we're talking about the Do-17 is because some rando chatbot hallucinated it into the discussion. If I wanted to talk to the chatbot I would go to the website and log in. Sorry, I was wrong, and it appears in Spanish. In these forums, it is strictly forbidden to discuss real-life issues related to the war, no matter what war it is. For example, on public servers and in the forums, there will be people who are intensely involved in the Ukrainian war, and at the same time, I believe they know each other very well. They come from the Russian forum, which is much more active than the international one. Regardless of their side, these "threads" can get very "twisted." So, I prefer not to answer you about these "Agreements that were never carried out." Best regards... and let's leave the real war to the "POLITICIANS," because enough is enough. For example, regarding the topic of real wars, where the same people always pay the price: "CHILDREN and GRANDPARENTS," I don't watch any TV channels or newspapers, since they're focused on sensationalism to make "blood" out of this news...
Recommended Posts