Medium bombers

[Roadrunner]

at least the channel coast was more or less confirmed when they asked for information about airfields of this time.

 

i try to find the original post.

 

EDIT: Airbase research post

 

EDIT 2:

All I can say at this time: "What we are looking for are all German fighter bases in northern France (north of Paris) / west of Calais and all allied airbases in southern England south of London but east of Exeter."

 

that should cover it.

[[DBS]TH0R]

As much as I like the B-25, B-26 would be my choice for this scenario and Normandy map.

[DB 605]

(allegedly it could turn inside a 109!)

 

Laughed a bit when i read that...:D

 

I have seen Invader "live" couple of times and it really is fast and manouverable but probably not that much...

 

 

B-26 would get my vote for allied "twin" too tought, but i voted Ju 88 because it's my all time favourite bomber.

Edited March 4, 2015 by DB 605

[airdoc]

Laughed a bit when i read that...:D

 

I have seen Invader "live" couple of times and it really is fast and manouverable but probably not that much...

 

 

B-26 would get my vote for allied "twin" too tought, but i voted Ju 88 because it's my all time favourite bomber.

 

I was wondering when the 109 fans would kick in with that comment....:)

 

That's why i inserted "allegedly" DB, I 've seen and read about this supposed turn radius of the A-26 and was also very skeptical about it.....

[The_Pharoah]

I'm really looking forward to this...esp if its a pre June '44 type scenario ie.

 

1. Rhubarb missions (low level, bad weather fighter sweeps)

2. Normal fighter sweeps over the Calais area

3. tactical bomber missions against all sorts of stuff

4. night fighter missions

5. anti shipping missions (although this would probably be limited I'm assuming

 

If we got a Medium (any medium), this is what I'd be spending 90% of my time flying.

[HeadHunter52]

Mitchell. Too awesome a bird. The gunship version needs to be an option. My favorite plane of the war. I'll take my 30 seconds over Poti, or Belsan or TOKYO.

 

Sign me up. It would be a nice little MP bird, too. Reasons? It has some good gunner stations for variety, but only two engines to manage for the pilot. PLUS, it isn't a taildragger, which will make it more attractive to jet pilots wanting to get into WWII stuff.

[OutOnTheOP]

I would prefer the A-26 Invader, based on the depicted timeline (it is contemporary to the Dora and Kurfurst/Mustang, and the Sabre, *and* the Phantom), high performance, vast array of mission profile (to include night fighter), and single pilot operation.

 

As it is not an option, I voted A-20, which is functionally similar, but obviously much worse performing

[Crumpp]

Mitchell

 

I love the B-25. It just wasn't a significant player in the ETO. It would be as immersive as an AN-26.

 

BTW, DoW has a great map that has AI AN-26's bombers which the P-51's have to protect and the Axis intercepts.

 

Great Map and lots of fun. It would be great to get some AI medium and heavy bombers in the game ASAP.

[MiloMorai]

The British received some 910 Mitchells.

[Crumpp]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2334212&postcount=7

[MiloMorai]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2334212&postcount=7

 

So? :dunno:

[Crumpp]

That was my reaction too.

[Kurfürst]

I do wonder if we really need medium bombers, if medium would fit well into a DCS scenario. First of all, medium bombers were very complex machines, with lots on board systems that would very work intensive to model on the fidelity levels DCS usually offers.

 

They are also probably a niche, thats probably why you have so few really detailed bomber sims. Bomber tactics were also rather rigid, you had a pre planned flight path and target, which you had to stick to. It was usually designed to avoid flak and fighters, against which the bombers were sitting ducks basically. In short, flying a medium bomber would be rather similar imho to flying a 747 in MS Flight Simulator (boring, at least for me), and not very rewarding in multiplayer, unless you can spare the time and have a dozen friends who would fly with you in a formation on a server, spending half an hour just to get into flak safe altitude... Even then, with the density of fighters and interceptors on a server, you are almost sure to run into some of them, and given the great superiority of a fighter over a bomber, its not really a question wheter the fighter would shoot you down, its more a matter of flipping of coin as to who would get shot down of the bomber guys. It would be as much fun as playing the Zebras in a Lion sim..

 

IMHO faster, more agile light bombers are so much more appropriate for a multiplayer simulation. They give you a fighting chance, more chance to actually reaching the target and doing something the fighters can't.

[airdoc]

I do wonder if we really need medium bombers, if medium would fit well into a DCS scenario. First of all, medium bombers were very complex machines, with lots on board systems that would very work intensive to model on the fidelity levels DCS usually offers.

 

They are also probably a niche, thats probably why you have so few really detailed bomber sims. Bomber tactics were also rather rigid, you had a pre planned flight path and target, which you had to stick to. It was usually designed to avoid flak and fighters, against which the bombers were sitting ducks basically. In short, flying a medium bomber would be rather similar imho to flying a 747 in MS Flight Simulator (boring, at least for me), and not very rewarding in multiplayer, unless you can spare the time and have a dozen friends who would fly with you in a formation on a server, spending half an hour just to get into flak safe altitude... Even then, with the density of fighters and interceptors on a server, you are almost sure to run into some of them, and given the great superiority of a fighter over a bomber, its not really a question wheter the fighter would shoot you down, its more a matter of flipping of coin as to who would get shot down of the bomber guys. It would be as much fun as playing the Zebras in a Lion sim..

 

IMHO faster, more agile light bombers are so much more appropriate for a multiplayer simulation. They give you a fighting chance, more chance to actually reaching the target and doing something the fighters can't.

 

Coming from a dedicated bomber squadron, i would disagree with a lot of what you are saying. The mindset of the bomber pilot is completely different from that of a fighter pilot. It is true though, that you need a squadron to be able to fully enjoy it and practice formation flying and navigation. You find it boring because you are thinking in terms of a pure fighter pilot.

 

Bomber pilots are primarily team players. For me, nothing beats the joy of flying in a sqadron of 9 heavies, planning the mission in advance, marking waypoints, setting rendezvous with fighter escorts, making the run, fulfilling the missinon goal, and rtbing. At DBS http://www.battle-fields.com/commscentre/showthread.php?24824-Selected-screenshots-from-various-Missions , we have been participating for years in many events in IL2 1946, and still flying in SEOW campaigns that are recreating historical scenarios. The immersion that a joint fighter-bomber effort yielded was unsurpassed. I can only dream about what it would be like to have SEOW-like campaigns in DCS with bombers.

 

Most missions in reality were about bombing something. Fighters were there to make sure the bombers would hit their target. Simple as that.

 

Any kind of bomber would be welcome. The heavier, the better. They would make for a vastly different multiplayer experience (for everyone). It is not the same thing to fly against AI bombers as it would be against human piloted ones.

 

Although, as you said, the audience is niche, a B17 or a Lancaster would probably sell as much as the Dora (or even more). Same goes for the mossie. Just my opinion.

 

EDIT : here are some shots from our exhibition flight with medium B25s a year ago. If you look at the screens, you will get a feel for what's in a Bomber Squadron event. It takes a serious amount of work in order to fly a large formation in a coordinated manner.

http://www.battle-fields.com/commscentre/showthread.php?25578-19-01-14-Exhibition-flight-SCREENS

Edited March 8, 2015 by airdoc

[Charly_Owl]

I do wonder if we really need medium bombers, if medium would fit well into a DCS scenario. First of all, medium bombers were very complex machines, with lots on board systems that would very work intensive to model on the fidelity levels DCS usually offers.

 

They are also probably a niche, thats probably why you have so few really detailed bomber sims. Bomber tactics were also rather rigid, you had a pre planned flight path and target, which you had to stick to. It was usually designed to avoid flak and fighters, against which the bombers were sitting ducks basically. In short, flying a medium bomber would be rather similar imho to flying a 747 in MS Flight Simulator (boring, at least for me), and not very rewarding in multiplayer, unless you can spare the time and have a dozen friends who would fly with you in a formation on a server, spending half an hour just to get into flak safe altitude... Even then, with the density of fighters and interceptors on a server, you are almost sure to run into some of them, and given the great superiority of a fighter over a bomber, its not really a question wheter the fighter would shoot you down, its more a matter of flipping of coin as to who would get shot down of the bomber guys. It would be as much fun as playing the Zebras in a Lion sim..

 

IMHO faster, more agile light bombers are so much more appropriate for a multiplayer simulation. They give you a fighting chance, more chance to actually reaching the target and doing something the fighters can't.

 

I couldn't disagree more. I share airdoc's position.

 

Flying bombers, especially with other players, is an art. I get as much satisfaction flying a bomber than I get flying any other fighter.

[Friedrich-4B]

The British received some 910 Mitchells.

 

Although Crumpp might not be interested, the majority of them served in 2 TAF, doing great service until war's end.

 

 

One of the more interesting operations undertaken by 2 TAF Mitchells, in conjunction with Typhoons, was the destruction of Panzer Group West's HQ on 10 June 1944:

 

 

(From Shores and Thomas 2 TAF Vol 1)

[joey45]

And what a fine plane it was.

[Crumpp]

Although Crumpp might not be interested, the majority of them served in 2 TAF, doing great service until war's end.

 

That is nice. Obviously you would never twist anything I ever said. :music_whistling:

 

 

 

I would point out the fact there were a lot more B-26's to be found AND the RAF operated almost as many B-26's as they did B-25's!

 

It would serve equally well in all scenarios.

 

:thumbup:

 

http://www.39thsquadronmarauders.org.uk/page37.html

[Crumpp]

Of course that does not preclude a B-25...I would pay for one!

[Friedrich-4B]

I would point out the fact there were a lot more B-26's to be found AND the RAF operated almost as many B-26's as they did B-25's!

 

Nobody said that the B-26 didn't serve in the USAAF in large numbers over Europe - what was mentioned is that the RAF operated B-25s over Europe as well.

 

But, seeing as the subject has been raised, in fact a total of 502 B-26s were given to the RAF and all served in Africa and the Mediterranean vs 910 RAF B-25s that served over France and northern Europe - so not exactly "almost as many B-26s".

 

As it is, in this poll the present score is B-25 = 28.23% vs B-26 13.71% :smilewink:

Edited March 8, 2015 by Friedrich-4/B

[NineLine]

I agree with those for it, I am very excited to see the multi-crew aircraft get real players in all positions, and it would be a crime not to introduce WWII era bombers with this, sign me up for a gunner position right now.

[javelina1]

I agree with those for it, I am very excited to see the multi-crew aircraft get real players in all positions, and it would be a crime not to introduce WWII era bombers with this, sign me up for a gunner position right now.

 

Amen brother, would be cool!

[Crumpp]

what was mentioned is that the RAF operated B-25s over Europe as well.

 

Exactly. The commonwealth and ?????

 

Oh yeah...nobody else.

 

I would rather see the Mossie for a daylight light bomber Commonwealth design. Save the B-25 for when the Zeke's and Wildcat's come out!!

 

That is just my opinion.

[The_Pharoah]

Bomber pilots are primarily team players. For me, nothing beats the joy of flying in a sqadron of 9 heavies, planning the mission in advance, marking waypoints, setting rendezvous with fighter escorts, making the run, fulfilling the missinon goal, and rtbing

 

Totally agree. Back in my IL2 squad days, I flew bombers 80% of the time (20% in Tempests :joystick:). There's a special feeling you get when you're holding formation on your wingman and knowing someone's holding formation on you. You get a little worried when enemy fighters come ripping in and you lose a wingman or two. Its an even better feeling when you drop your bombs once your leader does and get the 'target destroyed' flashed onscreen.

 

Sure its not 'sexy' like flying a Spit IX or P51D but its an awesome experience all the same.

 

Thats why I prefer the heavy fighters or light attack eg. Beaufighter, Mossie, etc because you have a crap load of firepower.

[Friedrich-4B]

Exactly. The commonwealth and ?????

 

Oh yeah...nobody else.

 

Just because the B-25 was only operated by the RAF doesn't make it irrelevant to a post-D-Day Northern European scenario; as I've said earlier, it participated in some of the more interesting ops undertaken by 2 TAF and it deserves to be represented.

 

That's not just my opinion.