1. #41
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RWetterholt:
    History my friend. Fighters are the key ingredient to any airwar. Battle of Britain. What won that? Spits and Hurricanes. Not Wellingtons and Lancasters. What won the war over Europe in 1943. Lots and lots of P-38's, P-47's and eventually P-51's. Sure there were a lot of B-17's involved, but in early 1943, without the P-51, Spaatz and Eaker were serisously considering abondoning daylight precision raids because of worsening German FIGHTER opposition. So yes...maybe bombers are more important...once the first step of air superiority has been won.

    Also...if you are so defensive of the bomber as being the most important tool...why then do you have a signature of a Spitfire?

    Just wondering. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Uhm...I would think it's safe to say that in Europe strategic bombing did more to damage the Germans ability to wage war then any fighter ever did. But you don't seem to get it. Fighters were built for one single purpose as were bombers. Neither plane is particularly good at doing anything other then what it's design intended.

    Being proud that you can shoot down a bomber in a fighter one on one is really not something to brag about. In reality bombers never went out and flew one on one against a fighter so your whole concept that fighters were what won the war because they could shoot down bombers is pure gamer fiction. Go up against 30 bombers in defensive formation and see how well you do. Chances are you will be flaiming wreckage long before you have the chance to do any real damage to a single bomber.

    One last thing, more bombers went down to AAA then were ever shot down by fighter aircraft. So I guess fighters and bombers both suck, we should all be manning AAA guns.
    Share this post

  2. #42
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cwojackson:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Akwar:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cwojackson:


    - Now I can fly an Avenger, one of the most prolific aircraft in the Pacific and a key element of the Pacific Air War.

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Have you been smoking crack?What flyable Avenger?After patching to 3.04m I looked high and low it is still not flayable.LMAO <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stranger things have happened...like the English Navy agreeing to place their battleships at Pearl Harbor in a reverse form of lend-lease. Here you go Yanks, some torpedo catchers for you...oops, I meant bomb catchers since the Japanese forces weren't flying carrier based A-20's at the time of the attack. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Ok I think I see that you were being sarcastic now sorry about my comment,

    Yes I must agree though,

    Id much rather have an enjoyable campaign experience then more new planes.
    Share this post

  3. #43
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Akwar:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cwojackson:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Akwar:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cwojackson:


    - Now I can fly an Avenger, one of the most prolific aircraft in the Pacific and a key element of the Pacific Air War.

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Have you been smoking crack?What flyable Avenger?After patching to 3.04m I looked high and low it is still not flayable.LMAO <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stranger things have happened...like the English Navy agreeing to place their battleships at Pearl Harbor in a reverse form of lend-lease. Here you go Yanks, some torpedo catchers for you...oops, I meant bomb catchers since the Japanese forces weren't flying carrier based A-20's at the time of the attack. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Ok I think I see that you were being sarcastic now sorry about my comment,

    Yes I must agree though,

    Id much rather have an enjoyable campaign experience then more new planes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sometimes you have to maintain a sense of humor...particularly when you're waiting out two weeks for the patch.
    Share this post

  4. #44
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Akira_251_IJN:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RWetterholt:
    History my friend. Fighters are the key ingredient to any airwar. Battle of Britain. What won that? Spits and Hurricanes. Not Wellingtons and Lancasters. What won the war over Europe in 1943. Lots and lots of P-38's, P-47's and eventually P-51's. Sure there were a lot of B-17's involved, but in early 1943, without the P-51, Spaatz and Eaker were serisously considering abondoning daylight precision raids because of worsening German FIGHTER opposition. So yes...maybe bombers are more important...once the first step of air superiority has been won.

    Also...if you are so defensive of the bomber as being the most important tool...why then do you have a signature of a Spitfire?

    Just wondering. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Uhm...I would think it's safe to say that in Europe strategic bombing did more to damage the Germans ability to wage war then any fighter ever did. But you don't seem to get it. Fighters were built for one single purpose as were bombers. Neither plane is particularly good at doing anything other then what it's design intended.

    Being proud that you can shoot down a bomber in a fighter one on one is really not something to brag about. In reality bombers never went out and flew one on one against a fighter so your whole concept that fighters were what won the war because they could shoot down bombers is pure gamer fiction. Go up against 30 bombers in defensive formation and see how well you do. Chances are you will be flaiming wreckage long before you have the chance to do any real damage to a single bomber.

    One last thing, more bombers went down to AAA then were ever shot down by fighter aircraft. So I guess fighters and bombers both suck, we should all be manning AAA guns. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Again...the German's ability to cut production of valuable assets such as fuel and ball bearings and even fighter planes was due to the bombing effort...this is correct. But there was in fact a period when the United States B-17's and B-24's were getting mauled over Germany at an almost unbearable rate. The main cause...intense German Luftwaffe fighter attacks. Sure...flack did play a major role in bringing down bombers. But German fighters also played a vital role in demoralizing and almost suspending the daylight bombing missions over Germany. And when did the missions of 1,000+ bombers begin again, when the USAAF had ample P-51's to range out in front of the bombers and intercept the Focke Wulfs and Messerschmitts and their most vulnerable phase...being takeoff/landing and the time during form up.

    So you see...the figher was of far greater importance to the air war in Europe than really the bomber ever was. If it were not for fighters like the P-51...USAAF bombers would have continued to suffer horrific losses and would probably have lead to the cancellation of daylight precision raids. So for you to say that bombers are more important is only half the story. In order for the bombers to be important...the fighters had to accomplish a far more important mission so that bombers may operate over German skies and sustain bearable losses.

    And as far as me bragging...I do not cinsder myself one to brag. I would be more than happy to fly through a formation of 30 bombers in "defensive" formation. Exactly...a defensive formation. The only proper defense is offense. Well if you have to jump through 2 views to get back to your 20mm cannon in the tail...assuming I have made a head on pass which is most difficult to defend against, your just wasting your time. Only noob pilots would try and sneak up behind a Betty or a Heinkel and attack from dead astern and expect to get only minimal damage. You always improvise on your tactics. "nothing is true in tactics." I always try and improvise. Therefore you get shot down and I fly off in victory.

    No...not victory but with another kill under my belt no less.

    Adios guys.
    Share this post

  5. #45
    F19_Olli72's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    1,361
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RWetterholt:
    And as far as me bragging...I do not cinsder myself one to brag. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Im sorry but this sounds a bit like bragging:

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RWetterholt:
    All you "bomber aces"...you got something else coming. I jump in my trusty Hellcat and you jump in your "trusty" Betty bomber and we will see who is at the bottom of Iron Bottom Sound after about 30 seconds...aka...two passes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    But it doesnt matter, this thread started by you calling all bomberjocks whiners who would whine about Bettys qualities. Hmm ask yourself what the most whined planes in PF are? Are they axis bombers? Or any bombers for that matter? Or could it be....[SHOCK] [HORROR] allied fighters like the Corsair? Just search for Corsairs threads and you got lots of material. Also in this thread you have whined most ...particurlarly about whiners...who doesnt exist yet.


    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RWetterholt:
    Well if you have to jump through 2 views to get back to your 20mm cannon in the tail <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    This is the part when i tell you you dont have to jump through 2 views to get to any gunnerposition. Of course, if you ever flew bombers you wouldve known that.
    Share this post

  6. #46
    Fehler's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,267
    I had a Betty once.. she wasnt that good.

    Oh, and RWetterholt, she certainly didnt go down very easily..


    Share this post

  7. #47
    Ok fighters vs bombers.....i can live with that especialy when i know that i have my fighter m8`s hanging around to intercept you......escort is not an allied tactic

    The betty will proberbly suck if interceptet, but i doent care...im a bomber pilot, i just want a bomber that is from the nationality that i fly for (IJN/IJA) if its a lighter...well then i have to stop smoking....but i will fly it...hopefully as i will fly the HE-111 and the JU-88.....
    Share this post

  8. #48
    I think some people are missing the point. There's no problem requesting an additional plane or 2, but this idea of 'should have been' in the game is cr@p. Who but the developers of the game are to say what aircraft SHOULD be in the game? The idea that we are owed something is just arrogance at it's worst. I've not so far come across many game developers that will support a game as well as 1C and Maddox with IL2 and PF. Stop complaining and start enjoying what you've got. It could be worse... a tsunami could have wiped out everything you own and everyone you care about... count yourself lucky you can complain about something. Anyway enough *****ing... just cracking open a beer, cheers.
    TP, WA
    Share this post

  9. #49
    p1ngu666's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    11,195
    it said betty was in the game on the box

    anyways, the fighter is only there to shoot down or protect the bombers and PR aircraft. no bombers no fighters, if fighters carry bombs, or shoot up stuff on the ground, they effectivly become bombers. so a fighter, in a pure form, is a reaction to bombers, it is secondary.

    put it like this, your on a sever on your own, there are ground targets, u could fly about at 20,000ft in your fighter, but your doing nothing effectivly. take a bomber or a ga or jabo aircraft, then your doing something.

    u can imagine ai tank and ship, &lt;tank&gt;hey look its a enemy fighter up there &lt;ship&gt;ehehehe he dont know we dont have planes! &lt;tank&gt; yep, wonder what hes thinking &lt;ship&gt; "im wasting my time up here" &lt;tank&gt; nuffin todo up there hehehe, oh my fuels arrived, tata mr ship

    vs say a il2/beufighter

    &lt;tank&gt;hello mr ship, i hear there is a il2 around :| &lt;ship&gt; aww man &lt;tank&gt;aww **** here he comes! &lt;il2&gt;a rocket in the face for mr tank, and mr ship, ill skip bomb u in a momment

    &lt;mrtank, dieing&gt; and my fuel convoy was so close... &lt;mr ship, sinking&gt; cheer up, i got a bomb up the backside

    &lt;convoy&gt; oh well, we wont be cold tonight after that il2 ignited us

    the fighter is merly there to stop or allow bombers to win the war
    Share this post

  10. #50
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pacettid:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Akira_251_IJN:
    Gamers never understand that some people actually like doing historic missions. My entire squad enjoys doing them. We, on the other hand get bored pretty quickly doing nothing but lame fighter furballs. Maybe because it's been done in every single combat flight sim since the begining. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    What he said! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    What they said!

    Guys, is it really so difficult to understand that some folk LIKE flying bombers, or biplanes, or float planes, or whatever? I mean, has anyone ever, ever, complained about the Stuka/SBD-3/TB3 etc FM being porked? No, because anyone who flies those planes can handle the short odds.

    Like I said before, the only people who'll complain about the Betty are the fighter jocks who get shot down by it. People flying it will have fun whatever happens...
    Share this post