Bomber Command II

[moon puppy]

Chris, from earlier in this thread it's been established we're looking for aircraft that were intended and designed for single role of a bomber. Pretty sure all those aircraft were designed from the get go as Attack aircraft. Lets keep it in the traditional sense of a multi engine bomber.

Non-precision, mass ground peppering aircraft. 10-4. This is why I ask.



Though one could argue the A-6...it could carry more bombs, further, faster than a B-17. :evil:

But I won't.

Back to digging.

Yep, that's what 25 years of development and a couple of good jet engines will get ya.

I'll punt to Terry and Ian on the A-26 Dave. :frantic

 

[MrT]

A-26 is good.

 

[centaur567]

Can a pair of A-10's be included in this campaign? Gary

 

[jknaus]

No, I think from what I've read that the A-10s wouldnt count.
And on that note I didnt read enough to realize that this was supposed to be a WWII theme so I'll move my AEG G.IV out of here also.
James

 

[moon puppy]

James I think you AEG would surely be allowed, it was designed as a multi-engine level bomber so press on.

 

[Heavens Eagle]

I concur with Bob on that James! I think the biggest problem is that with the modern aircraft there are multi role planes that don't count.

Here are some examples that work:[ul]
[li]B-52[/li]
[li]B-47[/li]
[li]B-50[/li]
[li]B-1[/li]
[li]B-2[/li]
[li]B-17[/li]
[li]B-29[/li]
[/ul]
Notice the B designation? Stands for bomber.

WW2 stuf can be a hot mess as planes had their roles changed during the production span. Here are more examples:[ul]
[li]Ju88 A1 Bomber[/li]
[li]Do17Z Bomber[/li]
[li]He111 P1 Bomber[/li]
[li]Ju88 A4 Bomber[/li]
[li]Ju88 G6 Night fighter (not a bomber)[/li]
[li]SM.79 Torpedo Bomber (not a bomber)[/li]
[li]FW190 F8 Ground attack (not a bomber similar role to A-10 Thus the A standing for Attack)[/li]
[/ul]


Hope that is all clear as mud.

 

[jknaus]

Yes but it is WWI and not WWII. So in the spirit I already moved it to War to end all Wars.
James

 

[centaur567]

Funny, the original thread said "Any bomber any era". Should have said "strategic bomber". It would have removed a lot of confusion. Gary

 

[moon puppy]

On this subject, not likely Gary. F111 was a bomber in SAC...

James, you're good under the "any era" clause.

 

[phantom II]

Funny, the original thread said "Any bomber any era". Should have said "strategic bomber". It would have removed a lot of confusion. Gary

.....Cheers, Christian B)

 

[centaur567]

Hi Moon puppy, What I meant by "strategic", was the concept. Not SAC per say, ie the Lancaster and the He-111 were bombers used in the strategic sense of the word. The F-111 and the F-117 should not, in my opinion even be called a fighter. Now I need to figure out hoe to join the desert storm campaign for one of my A-10's. Thanks Gary PS I'm really enjoying this forum

 

[Old Dog]

WARNING - WARNING This is your official two week warning, time to get those bombers out of their revetments and into the finished column !

 

[moon puppy]

Two weeks huh? :hmmm

 

[sharkman]

Christmas and work have been busy but I'm working on mine!

Should have an update today!