Pick Your Own Air Force

• Mar 28, 2005

• #121

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,365

16,109

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

What other topic?

 

• Mar 29, 2005

• Thread starter
• #122

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

there's annother one entitled "Pick your own airforce (i'm not trying to copy the other one)"..........

thank you.........

 

• Mar 29, 2005

• #123

M

Mosin

Airman

35

0

Mar 25, 2005

Well deradler since I could only pick 9 planes I picked the ones I thought would best for the role with the available planes.
The henschell 123 was a biplane and not fast enough later in the war. The P-51 wasnt used as a carrier plane but it could be converted ditto the junker 87

 

• Mar 30, 2005

• #124

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,365

16,109

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

Excuse me I meant Hs-129 not 123. My mistake and typo. However the 87 would have been a lousy carrier bomber, and correct me if I am wrong but the Stuka carrying a torpedo? The Fi-167 was the German carrier based torpedo bomber.

The Ju 87D-4 designation was used for a number of Ju 87D-1 and Ju 87D-3 aircraft that were converted for use as a torpedo bomber. However, they were never used operationally, and were later converted back to the Ju 87D-3 standard.

 

• Mar 30, 2005

• #125

M

Mosin

Airman

35

0

Mar 25, 2005

Yeah just as we started discussing this I had been going to make a new list I had accindentaly put in the wrong list the one I posted was meant for the other topic
Heres my new list
B-17---HEAVY BOMBER, CONVOY ESCORT, LONGE RANGE BOMBER
B-26---MEDIUM BOMBER, MARITIME BOMBER,LONGE RANGE BOMB
JUNKER 52 ---TRANSPORT
AT6 -----TRAINER
DH-98 MOSQUITO---MANY ROLES MAINLY FIGHTER BOMBER
D7A3 RYUSEI---- DIVE/CARRIER/TORPEDOE BOMBER
P-51---------LONGE RANGE ESCORT/DAY INTERCEPTOR
F4U CORSAIR ----CARRIER FIGHTER ( ALTHOUGH IT COULD BE USED FOR GROUND FIGHTER)
MESSERSCHMITT 410 ----INTERCEPTOR
Well thats my revised list

 

• Mar 30, 2005

• Thread starter
• #126

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

very nice by way of fighters but your bomber force is somewhat lacking.........

 

• Mar 30, 2005

• #127

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,365

16,109

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

Yeah very nice fighters and I would say that his bombers are quite fine thankyou!

 

• Mar 30, 2005

• Thread starter
• #128

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

well his best bomber is the mossie..........

 

• Mar 31, 2005

• #129

mosquitoman

Master Sergeant

2,979

16

Jan 20, 2005

Saffron Walden/Sheffield

www.myspace.com

You need at least one heavy bomber (by that I mean a bomber with a large payload)

 

• Mar 31, 2005

• Thread starter
• #130

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

what my friend mosquito man is trying to say here Mosin, is that the B-17 sucked..........

 

• Mar 31, 2005

• #131

M

Mosin

Airman

35

0

Mar 25, 2005

What was wrong with the B-17 It had better armament than the lancaster. Also what is wrong with only one heavy bomber I think that the B-26 was good medium bomber too.
Just tell me whats wrong with my choices and I will think it over

 

• Mar 31, 2005

• #132

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,365

16,109

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

Well the only problem Lanc has with the B-17 is the fact that it is not British and most of all not a Lancaster which for him is the best thing since Bread and Butter. I think it is a fine choice. I would have chosen the B-29 or B-24 over the B-17 because they both could carry more bomb load however the B-17 is a fine choice.

 

• Apr 1, 2005

• Thread starter
• #133

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

ha you al read my post wrong, i simply made clearer what mossieman was trying to say, i did not convey an opion of my own.........

 

• Apr 2, 2005

• #134

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,365

16,109

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

UH HU sure.

 

• Apr 2, 2005

• #135

mosquitoman

Master Sergeant

2,979

16

Jan 20, 2005

Saffron Walden/Sheffield

www.myspace.com

My personal view is that a B-17 didn't have the payload to be a heavy bomber

 

• Apr 2, 2005

• #136

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,365

16,109

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

No I would classify it as a Heavy Bomber however it sacrificed some bomb payload for other things like armor, and defensive weapons.

 

• Apr 2, 2005

• Thread starter
• #137

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

yes whilst it wasn't unheard for them to carry 2000-4000lbs of bombs to berlin, her absolute maximum payload means she's a heavy, as does the fact that she has four engines to a cirtain extent............

 

• Apr 2, 2005

• #138

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,365

16,109

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

I agree.

 

• Apr 2, 2005

• Thread starter
• #139

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

glad to hear it..........

wow i just said something nice about the B-17

 

• Apr 2, 2005

• #140

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,365

16,109

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

Why yes you did Lanc. How does that feel.