PDA

View Full Version : B29 will drop atomic bombs?



lbuchele
09-26-2004, 09:50 PM
We wiil see atomic bombs in the late stages of the war?

lbuchele
09-26-2004, 09:50 PM
We wiil see atomic bombs in the late stages of the war?

actionhank1786
09-26-2004, 10:09 PM
Haha careful with this question http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
This idea was brought up, and while some wanted it.
But most likely we wont see Atom bombs.
They were only used 2 times, and they're kind of...one of those things that people can easily be offended by. But hey, we never know what Oleg's got planned.

huggy87
09-26-2004, 10:16 PM
Time for the weekly A-bomb thread already? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Maple_Tiger
09-27-2004, 04:57 AM
It would sure be instersting in a dog fight server.

I wonder if Oleg could model in nuclear fall out? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Fritzofn
09-27-2004, 07:22 AM
i belive that the a-bomb will be like a lagg-hell

Tater-SW-
09-27-2004, 08:18 AM
Seems like a lot of work to fly unopposed missions for hours, then to drop 1 bomb. I guess they could just scale up the 5000kg blast already in game, and call it "Little Boy."

tater

Jason Bourne
09-27-2004, 08:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fritzofn:
i belive that the a-bomb will be like a lagg-hell <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

not really, after all, every one would be dead, so they would not need to draw anything but the explosion. but i dont want it in game, rather, i want a track of that mission, just to see it done in PF

Yellonet
09-27-2004, 11:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Seems like a lot of work to fly unopposed missions for hours, then to drop 1 bomb. I guess they could just scale up the 5000kg blast already in game, and call it "Little Boy."

tater <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I believe that "Little Boy" had an explosive force of about 15kT, so that would quite a large scale up http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Chuck_Older
09-27-2004, 02:47 PM
I still fail to see the relevance of a strategic weapon such as the atomic bomb in a tactical air combat sim like Pacific Fighters or Forgotten Battles.

Maple_Tiger
09-27-2004, 02:49 PM
Because it was historical Chuck.

Plus, I wouldn't mind skip bombing a nuke.

Chuck_Older
09-27-2004, 03:09 PM
That's the error in your thinking though, I beleive.

Sure it was historical, but how many were historically dropped?

The V-2 also historically happened. It's not in the game. The V-1 is. Why not the V-2?

I think it's because the player can do more to a V-1 than just look at it- he can shoot it down. A player would only ever see a V-2 before it was launched.

Same goes for the Abomb in my opinion. It's nothing but candy, a chance to see a big cool explosion, and nothing more.

Also, bombing a naval targets with an A-bomb was tried by the USN.

The results weren't all that positive, and in fact weren't particularly spectacular. It was not a great succes. It was determined that some crew would actually have survived long enough to make repairs, and few ships in the target group were actually sunk if I recall. The Navy was disappointed in the experiment.

darkhorizon11
09-27-2004, 04:42 PM
Oh Gawd. Not this junk again. Please lock and kill this thread its been here too many times. There was even one calling it the Adam Bomb.

And no I guarantee you we will not get it, whether you like it or not. Theres no point in whining about it and pointing out its significance. Its a waste of code. I'm pretty sure UBI has made it clear that they don't want to make this game political in any way. Since they already don't include the swastika. CASE CLOSED!

Maple_Tiger
09-27-2004, 04:50 PM
Thats the thing.

I wasn't realy thinking. I'm tired of thinking.

I only thought that it would be very cool to drop an A-bomb on an enemy base or try to skip bomb a ship.

The point *****s would just love it lol.

KSS_Shrike_UK
09-28-2004, 03:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by actionhank1786:
They were only used 2 times, ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bout the same as a MiG3U and I-185 then

WUAF_Badsight
09-28-2004, 03:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KSS_Shrike_UK:
Bout the same as a MiG3U and I-185 then . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it was a bit more than that for both A/C in combat

no wait . . . . im 100 % positive



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:

Same goes for the Abomb in my opinion. It's nothing but candy, a chance to see a big cool explosion, and nothing more. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well eye candy & the ability to say "i just nuked me some jappas"

both reasons (FPS standstill & racist undertones) are not reasons to have the nuclear bomb in PF

Snootles
09-28-2004, 05:38 AM
Only five MiG-3U were built due to the AM-35A engine no longer being available. They fought on the Kalinin Front.

One I-185/M-71 and one I-185/M-82A were built. They were tested in action on the Kalinin Front. Production was recommended but not followed through due to the fact that the La-5 used the same engine in a frame with less aluminum.


There's still a great Kalinin plane missing: the Mikoyan-Guryevich I-211. It started out as a project to engine a MiG-3 with an M-82A engine. The aerodynamic and structural refinements made to the design made it arguably the greatest Soviet propeller fighter design, but there was no production capacity for it. A pre-series batch of ten fought on the Kalinin Front.

avimimus
09-28-2004, 07:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by actionhank1786:
Haha careful with this question http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
This idea was brought up, and while some wanted it.
But most likely we wont see Atom bombs.
They were only used 2 times, and they're kind of...one of those things that people can easily be offended by. But hey, we never know what Oleg's got planned. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only thing that I would find offensive is people concentrating on the nuclear weapons (which were terrible and truely bled into the cold war) and not noticing or acknowledging the use of terror bombing by wiping out thousands of civilians.
The fire bombing was arguably worse.
Was it necessary? Was it right?
In any case it is a failure of our society if we do not remember and honestly accept what happened.

So the real question: will the B-29 have incendriary bombs?

Fritzofn
09-28-2004, 07:45 AM
ooohh, even no nuke, a carpet of 5K bomb's stil is fun to watch :-))

Loki-PF
09-28-2004, 08:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by avimimus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by actionhank1786:
Haha careful with this question http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
This idea was brought up, and while some wanted it.
But most likely we wont see Atom bombs.
They were only used 2 times, and they're kind of...one of those things that people can easily be offended by. But hey, we never know what Oleg's got planned. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only thing that I would find offensive is people concentrating on the nuclear weapons (which were terrible and truely bled into the cold war) and not noticing or acknowledging the use of terror bombing by wiping out thousands of civilians.
The fire bombing was arguably worse.
Was it necessary? Was it right?
In any case it is a failure of our society if we do not remember and honestly accept what happened.

So the real question: will the B-29 have incendriary bombs? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Youre right avimimus! I was wondering the very same thing. Have the Japanese ever apologized or aknowledged carpet bombing civilians in Nanking or other cities yet? BTW I don't think the Japanese flew the B-29, they had different bombers...

Chuck_Older
09-28-2004, 08:49 AM
Uh-uh, don't get into who should apologize for what. Bad idea

Anyway, the B-29 carried incendiary bombs in USAAF servoce during World War II. Why do you feel he thinks the Japanese flew the B-29?

avimimus
09-28-2004, 02:45 PM
I was probably a bit too agressive in making my point. But, I will point out that everyone agrees that the Japanese government and many institutions and individuals need to come to terms with and accept the crimes against humanity that were commited.

I also realise that terror bombing was first employed by the axis in both cases.

I do feel though that we cannot assume a position of moral superiority unless we accept the fact that we systematically organised massive raids to exterminate entire cities.

I recognise that killing children is sometimes necessary but that it is also wrong.

Was it the lesser of two evils?
In any case it happened and we should remember that.

-Avimimus

Loki-PF
09-28-2004, 02:58 PM
Chuck,

I assumed (and as he correctly noted) that avimimus was talking about the Axis who were the ones (in both theatres) to first target civilians.

Chuck_Older
09-28-2004, 03:03 PM
I can't really comment on an assumption that happened to turn out to be correct, all i can do is read the posts

Atomic_Marten
09-28-2004, 07:01 PM
I think it would be nice to have it in PF. But this types of thread are appearing here in seems to me regular basis. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

BTW it is not acceptable under any circumstances to *intentionally* target civilians. At least from our perspective today it is not acceptable (not to mention several internationally accepted conventions that explicitly forbid such actions). But hey I think those states involved in WW2 on either side were obligated to follow similar rules and we all know what good came from that rules. Majority of them were just play dumb. With all their false excuses. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

I think Chuck was right when he wrote uh-uh.