WW2 air-frames - twin engine bombers ?

[JokerMan]

Hi folks, this is my OP and 1st forum post.

 

I own most of the DCS products and am a huge supporter of ED and what they are doing with DCS in general. DCS World 2 is shaping up to be a major step forward.

 

It is the WW2 theater that I am particularly enthusiastic about. Bombers are critical so where are the twin engine bomber air-frame announcements in association with WW2?

 

The first post mention of a bomber air-frame was this http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=136615 by 'Call911' back in December of last year. Basically, there is not much about.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=126782 by O_Smiladon is another.

 

I cannot find a lot however about WW2 bombers [axis or allied] though I can appreciate immediately that given the fidelity ED and ED approved partners put into everything they do, bombers would be an absolute huge undertaking!

 

My questions stems from an expectation that many existing WW2 Flight Simmers will be attracted to DCS WW2 and will expect to see not only fighter air-frames in game.

 

S!

Edited July 27, 2015 by JokerMan
RE-titled to something useful

[dooom]

Yeah - I agree... I have often wondered why some enterprising group simply does not package 4 classic AI airframes together for sale - sell the B24/B29/He111/Ju88 as AI only with decent models, a few skins and simple flight modelling. The key is to ensure they are AI that follow reasonable ROE and present the bomb drops, formation flying with gunner defense we all dream of.

 

I cannot imagine that these would not be snapped up enthusiastically by the prop guys like myself.

 

To have a full fidelity He111 or B29 would be a dream though. I used to fly as a bomberdier for 2+ hours in WWII Online from Vlissigen all the way to England for Factory attacks.... those days were certainly never boring... I can't imagine how fun they would be with complex management to pass the time.

 

Great post - welcome to DCS forums!

[Alicatt]

VEAO have a couple of British twin engine aircraft on their "Roadmap"

DCS Warbirds Collection

Curtiss P-40F - September 2015 *

Grumman F8F Bearcat – Q4 2015 *

Supermarine Spitfire Mk XIV – Q4 2015 *

HA-1112 Buchon - Q4 2015 *

Hawker Typhoon

Grumman Wildcat - Q4 2015

Dehaviland Mosquito Mk IV

Dehaviland Mosquito Mk XVI

Messerchmitt Me109T

Supermarine Seafire 17

Hawker Sea Hurricane

Hawker Sea Hawk

Curtiss Hawk 75

Curtiss P-40C

Focke Wulf FW190A-8 / F-8

Messerschmitt Bf109-E4

North American A-36 Apache

 

DCS Royal Air Force Battle of Britain Memorial Flight (RAFBBMF)

We are currently in discussion with them to develop the pack and an announcement will be made soon.

Avro Lancaster

Douglas C-47 Dakota

Hawker Hurricane MkI

Hawker Hurricane MkIIb

Various Supermarine Spitfire’s in their collection

 

Map Areas

Duxford (test development map)

North Africa – Tubruq

Mach Loop – Welsh Valleys

Falkland Islands

 

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2122426&postcount=1

[Kal-El]

Agree. Myself, find it weird that they decided to do "trainer jets" first. I understand that there is more info on these jets available, but I don't think they will sale as much as a pack such as dooom described. I really hope some folks are enjoying these and is what they have been waiting for, too.

 

Eagerly awaiting the f-18 and f-14 a&b. I think I'll skip the trainer jets.

 

A pack of bombers, Flaming Cliff 3 level or AI only would be awesome and help bring ww2 alive.

[fastfreddie]

I think some of the multicrew stuff has been put on limbo until the DCS 2.0 engine is ready for multiplayer in the same craft. I'd settle for AI B-17, B-25, or B-24s but I think it will be a long time judging by the P-47/Spitfire development before we see any flyable medium or heavy bombers. It's been nine months since the K-4 release and little information on the next fighter ... really feels like DCS 2.0 is holding alot of things up that they don't want to do twice.

[WinterH]

Well, I'm no sure if we'll see much multi engine WW II aircraft anytime soon, but hey, wishing is fun :).

 

Rather than big 4 engine bombers, I'd enjoy it more to see lighter engine bomber/attackers first. That's just me, but the multi engine bombers I'd most like to see are :

- A-20

- A-26

- B-25

- Ju-88 / 388

- Mosquito (Already in VEAO's list)

- Perhaps Do-17 too, not too sure about this one.

 

Reason is, first they are nice to fly, second, airframes open up possibility of additional variants as modules, most of these aircraft have bomber, dive bomber, ground attacker, heavy fighter / night fighter versions too.

 

Honorable mention : Me-110 (or 210 or 410, but personally prefer 110, even if it's a bit of underdog, just too iconic and looks too cool =P). Even though, this is more of a heavy fighter, it served in attack roles just as readily, and probably better than it performed as a fighter.

 

I like others like He-111 or Blenheim a lot too, but these just wouldn't be as versatile as listed ones can be.

 

That said, may be we're better off on another path than laborous and costy to build modules : Even without having these as full fledged modules, AI only medium-heavy bombers would indeed add much to the table as well as mission bulding options and historical atmosphere go. Doesn't matter much in this case, infact, heavier the better. So long as they behave like a bomber, they'd add a lot. And while waiting for eventual player flyable bombers, we can still enjoy a much improved WW II setting in sim.

[msalama]

That's just me

NO!!! It's _not_ just you. Here's another dedicated groundpounder backing you 100%. To have, say, a DCS-level Havoc would be top drawer m'man :thumbup:

[Rangi]

I agree too. High fidelity or just ai we need some bombers. However before the bombers we need a better ai damage modelling behaviour. I'm sure it's all on the list we just need to be patient.

[Solty]

I rarely fly twin engine planes and yet I agree they make every scenario much more diverse, give more options and are interesting in the fighting style. +1 to twin engine planes.

[Kyle422]

Honestly I would love to see a fully modeled B-26 Marauder or a fully modeled B-25 My neighbor use to fly Pilot and Copilot on a B25 out of Italy. His actual B25 is still flying till this day.

 

I would never fly fighters again if they had a fully modeled twin engine bomber. Flying those always seemed more interesting then a fighter to me.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Kyle422

[msalama]

...a fighter to me.

 

+1 and then some

[Call911]

I still say I Ju87 or later Stuka would be fun, if nothing else to hear it scream terror into the ai :pilotfly: Seriously though maybe once the current planes in development are done will start to see more bombers getting some love. B17, B-29(one can dream) B-25, B-24 the Lancaster an the JU8...'s

[Chlebakus]

VEAO have a couple of British twin engine aircraft on their "Roadmap"

 

 

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2122426&postcount=1

 

You are very good joker indeed.

[AG-51_Razor]

The A-26 would definitely be my choice for a WWII twin engine bomber AND it would fit in quite nicely with all the Korean War planes in the game already - F-86 Saber, P-51D Mustang and Mig-15. It also saw service in Viet Nam.

[E111Virus]

The A-26 Invader is the attacK versión of the B-26 Invader (B is for Bomber), like the A-36 Apache is the attack versión of the P-51 Mustang.

 

Salu2 8)

[WinterH]

The A-26 Invader is the attacK versión of the B-26 Invader (B is for Bomber), like the A-36 Apache is the attack versión of the P-51 Mustang.

 

Salu2 8)

 

Nope, infact A-26 (Invader) and B-26 (Marauder) are two seperate aircraft :) However, A-26 was re-designated as B-26 after WW II, while the actual B-26 was, unless I'm mistaken, taken out of service.

 

As far as WW II U.S. aircraft is concerned, there really isn't too big of a distinction between Attack and Bomber designated aircraft. A-20 was designted an attacker, but for all intents and purposes, it was a medium bomber with gun strafing capability (and unless I'm mistaken they didn't even use rockets). Then, some versions of B-25 were also medium bombers, with even better forward firing guns for strafing, and were also able to carry a sizable load of rockets. So one can even argue that A-20 was more of a bomber and B-25 was more of a ground attacker :). Their flight performance were also comparable enough to dismiss the distinction of classification in my opinion.

[Art-J]

^ Just for the record, the 5th AF employed M8 rocket launchers on their A-20s for some time, but apparently they turned out to be not very useful.

[MiloMorai]

Nope, infact A-26 (Invader) and B-26 (Marauder) are two separate aircraft :) However, A-26 was re-designated as B-26 after WW II, while the actual B-26 was, unless I'm mistaken, taken out of service.

 

Definitely 2 different a/c. One was made by Douglas (A-26) and the other made by Martin (B-26).

[AG-51_Razor]

Nope, infact A-26 (Invader) and B-26 (Marauder) are two seperate aircraft :) However, A-26 was re-designated as B-26 after WW II, while the actual B-26 was, unless I'm mistaken, taken out of service.

 

As far as WW II U.S. aircraft is concerned, there really isn't too big of a distinction between Attack and Bomber designated aircraft. A-20 was designted an attacker, but for all intents and purposes, it was a medium bomber with gun strafing capability (and unless I'm mistaken they didn't even use rockets). Then, some versions of B-25 were also medium bombers, with even better forward firing guns for strafing, and were also able to carry a sizable load of rockets. So one can even argue that A-20 was more of a bomber and B-25 was more of a ground attacker :). Their flight performance were also comparable enough to dismiss the distinction of classification in my opinion.

 

The Douglas A-26 Invader was renamed the B-26 after the end of WWII when the Air Corps got rid of the Martin B-26. But then IIRC, due to some SNAFU with Thailand not allowing aircraft designated as bombers to be based in their country, the USAF renamed the B-26 Invader the A-26 in order for it to be based in Thailand. And it did most definitely carry rockets from WWII through Korea and on into the Viet Nam War. It also had 6x50 caliber MG's in the wings plus the 8 in the nose and had the ability to lock the gun turrets in the forward position to be fired on command from the cockpit. I doubt very much if the A-20 or B-25 could ever be considered to be on the same par with the Invader when it came to it's ability to tear S#%T up on the ground. Not only that, with 2xR2800 engines, it was considerably faster than either of those two. Fast enough to have been raced at Reno a long time ago!

 

Now that we have all pissed on each other's territory to show how much we know about aviation history, how about we get back to the subject at hand? :thumbup:

[Python]

I'll be happy with the Mosquito, what a beauty! I forgot it was on veao's list tbh, it just excited me for the second time.

[Kozmyk]

WWII - Twin Engine

Allies

Fighter/Bomber

**Mosquito**

*P-38*

*Beaufighter*

 

Bomber/Attacker

**B-25 Mitchell**

A-20 Havoc/Boston

A-26 Invader

 

Axis

**Me-110/210/410**

He-111

Ju-88

Ki-49

G4M Betty

[will487]

Wellington bomber ;)

[Aginor]

Now that you guys mention it...

 

I'd love to have a P-38 and/or a Me-110 in DCSW.

[Jacks]

As much as I would love to see a B-25 or a Mossie, I think the first bomber should be a german one to go some way to rebalancing the allied-axis divide.

 

Soon we will have 5 allied fighters against 2 axis fighters with no future planned axis aircraft.

 

In my opinion DCS 1944 will grow ED's customer base exponentially, just look at how many people play IL-2. Plus if they can model a large multi crew bomber with a large enough map for it to used correctly (not a 15 min flight to the target) then ED will offer players an experience not currently available in any other sim. Add to that other theatres such as the pacific and carrier based aircraft and DCS will probably be the most comprehensive combat simulator yet.

 

I think develop of this era should be a priority as soon as DCS 2 is released as it will generate a greater income and therefore allow ED to increase their development output across all elements and eras of DCS. Just my two pence's worth.

 

Jacks

[fastfreddie]

As much as I would love to see a B-25 or a Mossie, I think the first bomber should be a german one to go some way to rebalancing the allied-axis divide.

 

Soon we will have 5 allied fighters against 2 axis fighters with no future planned axis aircraft.

 

In my opinion DCS 1944 will grow ED's customer base exponentially, just look at how many people play IL-2. Plus if they can model a large multi crew bomber with a large enough map for it to used correctly (not a 15 min flight to the target) then ED will offer players an experience not currently available in any other sim. Add to that other theatres such as the pacific and carrier based aircraft and DCS will probably be the most comprehensive combat simulator yet.

 

I think develop of this era should be a priority as soon as DCS 2 is released as it will generate a greater income and therefore allow ED to increase their development output across all elements and eras of DCS. Just my two pence's worth.

 

Jacks

 

Don't forget we will be getting the ME 262 at some point even if nothing has been released on it lately. I'd be more than happy to purchase a Me 410 that served a mid to late war role but could enjoy something like the Ju88 also.