|
|
Post by titanuranus on Sept 4, 2019 17:19:17 GMT -6
The airplane drop-down filter lists "Heavy Bomber" as a potential type of aircraft. However, my endgame all-techs USA cannot build them. I cannot find anything on the forums. Are/were heavy bombers planned to be added at some point? If so, are they going to be significantly different from Medium bombers, perhaps by a strategic bombing mechanic which adds VP/unrest?
|
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Sept 4, 2019 17:48:32 GMT -6
That may be an accidental holdover - while I initially created stats for heavy bombers (and a few other types) for RTW2 for 'completeness' sake when we worked on the aerial systems, they are not included as strategic bombing is outside the scope of the game.
Now, if Fredrik decides to use them later on that would be fine, but offhand I know of no plans at this point for that...
|
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Sept 4, 2019 23:14:22 GMT -6
I keep trying to think how, as head of the navy in a Naval sim, how heavy bombers could be used... and can’t think of anything that wouldn’t fall under an Air Force or Army type role outside of strategic bombing.
But naval strategic bombers I could see hitting ports, damaging ships at dock putting them under monthly repairs, etc... I dunno. My argument for them is pretty weak. But hey, the more toys, the more fun! Bring on the heavy bombers!
Oh, maybe they could be used to drop early guided anti-ship missiles?
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 4, 2019 23:21:30 GMT -6
I keep trying to think how, as head of the navy in a Naval sim, how heavy bombers could be used... and can’t think of anything that wouldn’t fall under an Air Force or Army type role outside of strategic bombing. But naval strategic bombers I could see hitting ports, damaging ships at dock putting them under monthly repairs, etc... I dunno. My argument for them is pretty weak. But hey, the more toys, the more fun! Bring on the heavy bombers! Oh, maybe they could be used to drop early guided anti-ship missiles? What about the US Navy A-3 Skywarrior? It was a nuclear-armed, carrier-based bomber. There was the A-5 Vigilante which was a nuclear-armed, carrier-based bomber. Don't be attached to four engine, heavy bombers. There are alternatives.  |
|
|
|
Post by hargentannhaus on Sept 5, 2019 0:27:58 GMT -6
Have anyone thougth about the B24 Liberators?
They were used very successful as long-range seapatrol in WW2.
In the other hand, the Soviet Union used their heavy bombers also as sea patrols and anti-ship platform. The Bear or the Badger were introduced as heavy strategic bombers for atomic bombs. Both were adapted to carry and fire ASMs
|
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Sept 5, 2019 5:20:43 GMT -6
Well, we’re the b24s ever effective at anti ship warfare or were they used as spotters/ASW?
How would it be worth the effort to implement heavy bombers? I’d love to play with em, but I don’t see how we’d use them. Do you?
|
|
|
|
Post by dougphresh on Sept 5, 2019 5:58:25 GMT -6
Coastal command B24s and B17s extended the patrol range over the Atlantic, for sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by hargentannhaus on Sept 5, 2019 6:24:28 GMT -6
They were used as spotters/ASW mainly but also for light ASuW. Fight against freighters, patrol vessel and other surface combatants with little or no AA. The Navy version, PB4Y-2 Privateer, could use the bat radar-guided bomb. But you are right. They weren't much effective against anything larger than a minesweeper.
I think they would run under the flying boats in terms of ASW and patrol.
One point where heavy bombers are suitable, are as missile carrier.
|
|
|
|
Post by dougphresh on Sept 5, 2019 7:26:01 GMT -6
"One point where heavy bombers are suitable, are as missile carrier."
Tu-22's when?
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 5, 2019 7:53:18 GMT -6
The B-24 type four engine bomber, later used by the US Navy configured as the PB4Y, was most effective on land targets. It was an ideal antisubmarine patrol bomber, long range reconnaissance aircraft, VIP transport. They were excellent at hitting an enemy port with ships sitting stationary or at docks unloading, hitting fuel and ammunition dumps, airfields were prime targets for them. They were durable and hard to shoot down. They provided excellent support for invasions. They flew out of Carney Field on Guadalcanal starting in February 1943.
I can think of a couple of nations like Italy, Japan, German even England and France where long range patrol bombers would be useful. Italy especially if they were flying out of Sicily and Sardinia covering the Straits of Messina or the Straits of Otranto. Japan could use them in the Yellow Sea and the Sea of Japan or South East Asia for patrols.
|
|
|
|
Post by hargentannhaus on Sept 5, 2019 8:04:51 GMT -6
"One point where heavy bombers are suitable, are as missile carrier." Tu-22's when? Tu-22M 1972 in service.
But the Tu-16B is 1955. The AS-1 Kennel ASM was intruduced in 1953. First carrier was the Tu-4 Bull. Later the Tu-16B. |
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Sept 5, 2019 8:05:35 GMT -6
The B-17 was initially promoted as an anti-shipping weapon that could defend US coasts, making the navy redundant. In a publicity stunt meant to publicize this 'capability', the USAAC had a flight of B-17s intercept the Italian ocean liner Rex while it was in the Atlantic on a trip to New York in 1937 or 38 IIR. The stationing of B-17s in the Philippines in 1941 was to increase the anti-shipping threat-there weren't any "strategic" targets in the area to bomb. People didn't understand how inaccurate level bombing of ships was.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixg92 on Sept 5, 2019 8:09:46 GMT -6
He-177 Greif carrying Fritz X or hs293, luftwaffe calls that a heavy bomber with ASM but indeed with its powerplants as they were its lucky to be a considered a medium. When it does fly.
Lancasters sinking Tirpitz.... New type of air activity event? Or bombing your ships on the slips? A favorite RAF and Luftwaffe passtime! Want to see real delays in construction or .... Has to scrapped on the slip as totally ruined before completion and launch.
Privateer with BAT.
Uses and examples for heavy bombers, i know more but then we are cherry picking, also some stuff done by mediums could have been done better by heavies had they been available.... But basicly strategic solutions dont fit all that neatly into a tactical simulation environment, by necessity it is fighting at a higher level, why sink your destroyers and subs when I can starve them of fuel and ammo so they never leave port.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 5, 2019 8:45:19 GMT -6
He-177 Greif carrying Fritz X or hs293, luftwaffe calls that a heavy bomber with ASM but indeed with its powerplants as they were its lucky to be a considered a medium. When it does fly. Lancasters sinking Tirpitz.... New type of air activity event? Or bombing your ships on the slips? A favorite RAF and Luftwaffe passtime! Want to see real delays in construction or .... Has to scrapped on the slip as totally ruined before completion and launch. Privateer with BAT. Uses and examples for heavy bombers, i know more but then we are cherry picking, also some stuff done by mediums could have been done better by heavies had they been available.... But basicly strategic solutions dont fit all that neatly into a tactical simulation environment, by necessity it is fighting at a higher level, why sink your destroyers and subs when I can starve them of fuel and ammo so they never leave port. I don't think that you are cherry picking. Medium and heavy bombers have some vital uses in the execution of a naval strategy. Carriers and their air wings are offensive weapons with limited capability over time. They can't stay at sea forever and still supply deck loads and such. However with the help of medium and long range bombers along with seaplanes doing reconnaissance and ASW, then the combat operations can be extended over time. This is how they were used in the SW Pacific which is a good example of how they should be merged into one team. |
|
|
|
Post by titanuranus on Sept 5, 2019 9:41:18 GMT -6
I would think that the preferred roles of HBs would be:
1. ASW
2. Special payloads (large ASMs and earthquake-equivalent bombs)
3. Strategic Bombing (could be hitting repairing/building ships, damaging ports, terror bombing, or mining harbors)
Only ASMs allow tactical options, and only for a short time before medium bombers can carry them. ASW is probably no different from flying boats. Earthquake bombs aren’t really tactical. Strat bombing is really quite similar to submarine warfare, except that it would presumably bypass the ASW fleet and only take damage from fighters or hypothetical land-based AA defenses.
Without discriminating based on range, I don’t see how HBs can have much of a defined role in-game (once strat bombing is ruled out). They’ll just duplicate flying boats/subs/medium bombers.
|
|
