PDA

View Full Version : Fighters or Bombers...Which is more imporant?



RWetterholt
01-21-2005, 09:40 AM
Hello all...

Well I seemed to have started some discussion about which is more important in one of my previous threads about which is more important...fighters or bombers. So what do you think? Post your opinions here. And please...try and control yourselves and restrain from insults...I, for one, will try my very best. So lets hear it...

RWetterholt
01-21-2005, 09:40 AM
Hello all...

Well I seemed to have started some discussion about which is more important in one of my previous threads about which is more important...fighters or bombers. So what do you think? Post your opinions here. And please...try and control yourselves and restrain from insults...I, for one, will try my very best. So lets hear it...

Maple_Tiger
01-21-2005, 09:54 AM
I feel that cargo planes are the most important.

1) Without them, you wouldn't have any supplies/amo.

2) You would go hungry.

3) You would be without beer.

4) No girly magaziens.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Zeus-cat
01-21-2005, 10:05 AM
Every type of plane is important. If they weren't important, they would not have been built and flown. Take away any particular type of aircraft and the war effort suffers in some way.

You can't bomb factories deep inside enemy territory with cargo planes or fighters. You can't defend your cities from enemy bombers by sending up your own bombers to intercept them. You can't haul cargo around without cargo planes. You can't spot enemy ground forces from high-altitude bombers or high-speed fighters; you need reocn planes for that. You can't drop paratroopers from single-seat fighters or multi-engine bombers. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Zeus-cat

VF51_Flatspin
01-21-2005, 10:07 AM
Bombers win the war. Bombers can't win the war without Fighters.

Latico
01-21-2005, 11:13 AM
What's the point in having fighters if there are no bombers to escort or intercept. Fighters really aren't able to carry enough ordinance to be very cost effective as ground pounders against large armament factories and supply facilities or shipping.

Without bombers, fighters are sort of a waste of machinery, fuel, and man power. I mean, what woud they be doing besides just shooting each other down?

LEBillfish
01-21-2005, 11:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
I feel that cargo planes are the most important.
1) Without them, you wouldn't have any supplies/amo.
2) You would go hungry.
3) You would be without beer.
4) No girly magaziens.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All joking aside I agree 100%.....Without Ju-52's & C-47's....Niether side could have fought the war on the scale they did.

lbhskier37
01-21-2005, 11:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
Every type of plane is important. If they weren't important, they would not have been built and flown. Take away any particular type of aircraft and the war effort suffers in some way.



Zeus-cat <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not true, remember the Defiant http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Supr
01-21-2005, 11:44 AM
It seems to some that the only thing important is a betty. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

icrash
01-21-2005, 12:29 PM
I have gotten to flying the B-25 mostly so I kinda like the bombers. Partially cause it's easy to fly, partly cause I can shoot at the guy on my 6 where I can't in the fighter http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. The biggest problem with the bombers is the time needed to model them. Multiple fighters can be done in the time it takes to do one bomber. I supposethe answer depends on what ya fly the most.

Texas LongHorn
01-21-2005, 12:35 PM
Y'know guys, this reminds me of the famous line in the Stephen Coont's novel and film; "Flight of the Intruder" which speaks of A-6's in 'Nam. To paraphrase the quote- "Fighter pilots make movies, bomber pilots make history!" Nuff said, all the best, LongHorn

oldschool1992
01-21-2005, 12:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by icrash:
I have gotten to flying the B-25 mostly so I kinda like the bombers. Partially cause it's easy to fly, partly cause I can shoot at the guy on my 6 where I can't in the fighter http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. The biggest problem with the bombers is the time needed to model them. Multiple fighters can be done in the time it takes to do one bomber. I supposethe answer depends on what ya fly the most. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think 180+ flyable fighters are plenty. Personaly I only fly about 3-4 different planes in game anyways so the other 176+ are excess baggage as far as I am concerned. We definatly could use some heavy's (B17)http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

georgeo76
01-21-2005, 12:46 PM
without bombers, fighters are useless. the first priority of a fighter is to protect it's own bombers, and defend against his enemys. fighter vs. fighter combat is merely a consequence of this.

UKPsycho
01-21-2005, 01:15 PM
I suggest this, those who think the fighter is more important - just have fighters, those who think bombers are more important - just have bombers. I believe they are equally important - so I'll have both. In turn we go to war and see who comes out on top! I think my airforce will! My point? They're both only as good as their support, ie each other!!!!

Tully__
01-21-2005, 07:37 PM
If bombers, recon, cargo and ground strike aircraft didn't exist, there'd be little or no need for fighters. As Georgeo76 pointed out, fighter v. fighter combat is merely a consequence of opposing fighters carrying out their assigned roles in dealing with other types of aircraft.

heywooood
01-21-2005, 07:52 PM
not according to Hermann Goering...his bombers where used primarily as a lure to get RAF fighters to come up where his b'loved Jastas could "knock them all down"....oops.

ofcourse there were a few attempts to put 'chain home' out of commission as well as some poorly co-ordinated airfield attacks...but for the most part, Hermann just used the bombers as bait. Thats why he is known better as 'Meier' within the Luftwaffe..

Hades_Dragon
01-21-2005, 08:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> without bombers, fighters are useless. the first priority of a fighter is to protect it's own bombers, and defend against his enemys. fighter vs. fighter combat is merely a consequence of this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, but what about carrier ops?

heywooood
01-21-2005, 08:21 PM
carriers were used to bring bombers closer to enemy held islands, ...fighters used to protect the carriers and bombers...recon used to locate enemy carriers and task forces for concerted ship to ship bomber attacks. next.

F19_Olli72
01-21-2005, 09:14 PM
Why cant i vote for groundattack planes then? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif Didnt Stalin say Il-2's were as important as bread and air? bread and air....is pretty important http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Also (although not that significant but still) who was the highest decorated pilot in the Luftwaffe? Was it a fighterpilot, or was it a bomber/groundpounder jock? Hint: starts with R...ends with UDEL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

p1ngu666
01-21-2005, 09:33 PM
fighters are secondary http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

see betty thread http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

heywooood
01-21-2005, 09:55 PM
which would you prefer to go to war in?

a fighter that can bomb? ~or~

a bomber that can fight?


A true fighter plane that has cheezy hardpoints and so occassionaly has big dumb anvils hung from them - hapless pilot grudgingly delivers them... ~or~

a bomber/hybrid that is designed to carry a few more big dumb anvils but has a few guns stuffed under the cowl and in the wings for show..powers that be decide you need no escort because you have these guns and fewer than two engines, so you get no escort...

gotta love those sturmovik pilots...

p1ngu666
01-22-2005, 01:50 AM
nah if u equip a fighter with bombs, or it attacks stuff on the ground, its effectivly a bomber, in this analgy

also fighters carring bombs need escorts too, u could say drop bombs and fight, but do that and the enemy have won http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

F4U_Flyer
01-22-2005, 02:16 AM
Both!! plus transport and recon.....of course!

MGBurrows
01-28-2005, 01:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF51_Flatspin:
Bombers win the war. Bombers can't win the war without Fighters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which came first:
The chicken or the egg?

Iron-Works
01-28-2005, 01:37 PM
If it wasnt for bombers why would you need fighters?

Maj_Death
01-28-2005, 02:18 PM
Bombing ground targets and gathering intellegence on the enemy is what military aviation is all about. In WW1 the very first planes were recon planes, not fighters. The second class developed were light bombers, not fighters. The very last class to be built was fighters, the only reason they came about was to destroy the enemy bombers and recon planes. Later on they began fighting for local air superiority so defending the friendly bombers and recon planes and destroying the enemy's would be easier. 90 years later, this has not changed. So to answer your question, bombers and recon planes are tied for most important. Cargo planes make things easier but arn't really too important, you can always load a bomber up with supplies ya know http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif.

In regards to PF, we need a few more bombers and fighters before it can be considered complete. The two most vital are the TBF/TBM and B5N. The Ki-43-II, Ki-44, Ki-46, Ki-100 and G4M are also needed but arn't as vital.

F4U_Flyer
01-28-2005, 10:58 PM
"Which came first:
The chicken or the egg? "

The Rooster.......DOH!

flemsha
01-28-2005, 11:30 PM
In role bombers are more important, but I think often it is fighter aircraft, acting as bombers, which have the biggest impact on the war on the ground, as it is often fighter aircraft which get given the job of tactical bombing. Aircraft like the Corsair, Thunderbolt and Typhoon may well have made their biggest contribution to the war not as the fighters they were designed to be, but with bombs are rocket on their wings.

civildog
01-29-2005, 12:23 AM
hmmm....eating or breathing? Which is more important?

fordfan25
01-29-2005, 12:35 AM
wich ever carried the most number of 50. cal's because as every one in here knows but will not admit is THE 50 BMG WON THE WAR.

p1ngu666
01-29-2005, 06:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fordfan25:
wich ever carried the most number of 50. cal's because as every one in here knows but will not admit is THE 50 BMG WON THE WAR. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

b25j solid nose, american flying wet dream http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

12 50cals forward, plus top turret can fire forwards... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif