PDA

View Full Version : What would you rather have?2



skabbe
08-29-2005, 07:55 AM
B17 or Lancaster?

feels much more compareble...

tigertalon
08-29-2005, 09:00 AM
Lancaster. By far.

JG7_Rall
08-29-2005, 09:32 AM
neither

I'd rather have BoB a year earlier

Deedsundone
08-29-2005, 10:49 AM
B1 Lancer.Both a B and a L.

SnapdLikeAMutha
08-29-2005, 11:22 AM
I've never been to Lancaster but it looks like a s***hole so my vote goes for B17

Von_Zero
08-29-2005, 11:29 AM
Lncasters bombing at night or B-17s bombing in daylight?
I'd take a Lancaster. Just for the looks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SeaNorris
08-29-2005, 11:44 AM
Lancaster, B-17 sucks next to it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Daiichidoku
08-29-2005, 11:52 AM
kind of pointless to post THIS one, skabbe....

the two planes are too similar, really, for this to be a nice, contentious thread, hehe

besides, its clear cut that the lanc would be prefferable for ANY mission over the B 17

SnapdLikeAMutha
08-29-2005, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:

besides, its clear cut that the lanc would be prefferable for ANY mission over the B 17

Besides cinematic ones, the B17 arguably looks much better on camera than the Lanc

arcadeace
08-29-2005, 12:12 PM
The Lancaster is one ugly duck but they both sucked. What did the generals know? The <span class="ev_code_PINK">Mossie</span> was the only way to go.

danjama
08-29-2005, 01:25 PM
If you think internal, i think the Lanc would still win. Imagine watchin a il2 movie from inside a Lanc. Then again imagine watchin a il2 movie from inside a B17. I think id take Lanc caus i English and caus the B17 has way to much coverage. Then again, Flyable B24 would be nice...

StellarRat
08-29-2005, 01:37 PM
The Lancaster carries a much larger bombload, but has less defensive guns and is not as sturdy. At this point I'd take either plane as long as it was in cockpit flyable and had a working bombsight. IL2 has been in dire need of fully modeled decent four engine bomber ever since AEP came out.

NorrisMcWhirter
08-29-2005, 01:44 PM
TBH, I'd prefer to see neither and to have more early war planes included.

I see the merits of inclusion for both co-ops and offline but their overall scope seems relatively limited compared to, say, the Pe2 (which we may or may not see).

Having said that, if I had the choice of either, it would be the Lancaster, pretty much for the reason that danjama gave - B17 has had plenty of coverage and Il-2's history is a shining example of giving 'lesser spotted' aircraft some deserved limelight.

Ta,
Norris

vanjast
08-29-2005, 01:52 PM
Well think of this..
(a)The B17 carried a standard 6000lbs for a range of 1100 miles at approx 220mph
(b)The Lanc carried about 12000 lbs.
(c)The Mossie could do 4000lbs at twice the speed with just 2 crew members.

Any accountant pilot would tell you that the mossie is more productive, ie: (c) = (a) + (b).

skabbe
08-29-2005, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
kind of pointless to post THIS one, skabbe....

the two planes are too similar, really, for this to be a nice, contentious thread, hehe


nah, i was thinking to see a long US vs UK thread.

I say lancaster by the way.

crazyivan1970
08-29-2005, 04:37 PM
I would like you to reduce a size of your signature.

Thank you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Christos_swc
08-29-2005, 05:48 PM
I say capture an Arado jet, copy it, produce it in numbers and you're set.
Without having to worry about scarce engine materials like the Germans you'll be reliable too.
Then come and tell me about survivability, Bart Lancaster and the Mossie.

vanjast
08-30-2005, 02:01 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I would like you to reduce a size of your signature.

Thank you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hi Ivan... who are you asking here? what the max size alowable for a signature ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WTE_Ibis
08-30-2005, 02:39 AM
skabbe, you gotta stop given yer sig viagra m8 or you is in big deep stuff. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

WOLFMondo
08-30-2005, 03:55 AM
Lancaster all the way. That plane had more people work on or with it than any other British aircraft of WW2.

No B17 could carry cookies, Tallboys, Grandslams or the sheer weight of ordanance the Lancaster could carry. Besides, I want to drop tallboys on the Tirpitz.

Oilburner_TAW
08-30-2005, 05:07 AM
Lancaster or
B24<--- The forgotten bomber of WWII (at least here in US)

skabbe
08-30-2005, 01:39 PM
I would like you to reduce a size of your signature

Thank you



Originally posted by WTE_Ibis:
skabbe, you gotta stop given yer sig viagra m8 or you is in big deep stuff. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

I cant help my sig is big, it just camed that way. but hold on, it might change some day...

stathem
08-30-2005, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Christos_swc:
I say capture an Arado jet, copy it, produce it in numbers and you're set.
Without having to worry about scarce engine materials like the Germans you'll be reliable too.
Then come and tell me about survivability, Bart Lancaster and the Mossie.

err, Canberra?

p1ngu666
08-30-2005, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by Oilburner_TAW:
Lancaster or
B24<--- The forgotten bomber of WWII (at least here in US)

do the names, wellington, stirling, hampden, halifax, blehiem, battle, whitley, manchester mean anything to u? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

id go with lanc http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

skabbe
08-30-2005, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by Oilburner_TAW:
Lancaster or
B24<--- The forgotten bomber of WWII (at least here in US)

you are quite right there, but it was more in the shadow of the B17 even though it was much better.

SnapdLikeAMutha
08-30-2005, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by skabbe:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Oilburner_TAW:
Lancaster or
B24<--- The forgotten bomber of WWII (at least here in US)

you are quite right there, but it was more in the shadow of the B17 even though it was much better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually although the B-24 had better range and payload capabilities than the -17 (and I think cruised a little faster) it was less sturdy and flew at a lower altitude which made it more vulnerable to flak. It was also a LOT more complicated and expensive (only the B-29 was more expensive to build in WW2) none of which prevented them making ~19000 of the darned things http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

*edit* wait you're referring to the Lanc not the B-24? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Daiichidoku
08-30-2005, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by SnapdLikeAMutha:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by skabbe:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Oilburner_TAW:
Lancaster or
B24<--- The forgotten bomber of WWII (at least here in US)

you are quite right there, but it was more in the shadow of the B17 even though it was much better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually although it had better range and payload capabilities than the -17 (and I think cruised a little faster) it was less sturdy and flew at a lower altitude which made it more vulnerable to flak. It was also a LOT more complicated and expensive (only the B-29 was more expensive to build in WW2) none of which prevented them making ~19000 of the darned things http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

most crews actaully preffered the halifax over the lanc, at least when the Mk III debuted with hercs

crazyivan1970
08-30-2005, 03:56 PM
"Signature size limits in the PF/IL2 forums

Unfortunately signature sizes have got out of hand for some users.

Therefore the following rules will apply for signatures. Could everyone please check their signatures and ensure they meet these new guidelines.

- Limited to one image per signature or a short text.
- 500 wide x 200 high maximum dimensions
- 40KB file size maximum
- 3 lines of additional text"


So... not some day maybe...rules apply to all, so please follow http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

neural_dream
08-30-2005, 04:06 PM
CrazyIvan your sig pic is 47kb http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
just kidding

crazyivan1970
08-30-2005, 04:15 PM
I know, but that comes with the title http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p1ngu666
08-30-2005, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SnapdLikeAMutha:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by skabbe:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Oilburner_TAW:
Lancaster or
B24<--- The forgotten bomber of WWII (at least here in US)

you are quite right there, but it was more in the shadow of the B17 even though it was much better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually although it had better range and payload capabilities than the -17 (and I think cruised a little faster) it was less sturdy and flew at a lower altitude which made it more vulnerable to flak. It was also a LOT more complicated and expensive (only the B-29 was more expensive to build in WW2) none of which prevented them making ~19000 of the darned things http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

most crews actaully preffered the halifax over the lanc, at least when the Mk III debuted with hercs </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah, some did, some didnt, decent plane but not as good as a lanc but not massivly so

mole_boy
08-31-2005, 04:33 AM
I Want Lanc because it can carry tallboys, grandslams, Upkeep, and all sortsa kool stuff which goes BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMM http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

LeadSpitter_
08-31-2005, 04:53 AM
Both the lancaster and b-17g/b24 equally, as well as the condor, japanese h8k, and soviet pe8 and italian 3 engined marchetti bomber.

Oilburner_TAW
08-31-2005, 05:06 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
do the names, wellington, stirling, hampden, halifax, blehiem, battle, whitley, manchester mean anything to u?

I'm from Texas, of course they don't! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

In all honesty I'll take all the bomber's they'll give. My order of preference would be:

B-24
Lancaster
B-17
Wellington
Halifax
Blenheim
B-29

and of course a way to set the altitude for air spawns.