PDA

View Full Version : B17 vs IL2



tigertalon
04-03-2007, 05:32 AM
Both plane types inflicted heavy damage on german targets during the war, against a very different targets tho.

tigertalon
04-03-2007, 05:32 AM
Both plane types inflicted heavy damage on german targets during the war, against a very different targets tho.

Kurfurst__
04-03-2007, 05:41 AM
Difficult to say. What hurt the Germans the most was the loss of their fuel producing capacity in 1944.

The Il-2 got the Red Army to Rumania, from where Germany got most of it's oil and cut it off.
The B-17s knocked down the synthetic fuel plants in Germany that were producing fuel from coal.

I am a bit inclined towards the Il-2, as strategic bombing can make life difficult, but not impossible. In the end you'll always need your grunts to get to the enemy capitol, and they'll surely do it sooner if they have direct, effective air support on the battlefield. Bombing alone can't win wars.

tigertalon
04-03-2007, 05:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Difficult to say. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, that's exactly why I started this poll.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I am a bit inclined towards the Il-2, as strategic bombing can make life difficult, but not impossible. In the end you'll always need your grunts to get to the enemy capitol, and they'll surely do it sooner if they have direct, effective air support on the battlefield. Bombing alone can't win wars. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rgr that, but also ground forces do need the enemy "softened" by a strategic bombings before...

Maybe a question should be rephrased into: the lack of which one of these two plane types would prolong the war longer?

leitmotiv
04-03-2007, 05:47 AM
Another absurdist thread. Like asking which is more important: the Sistine Chapel or a McDonalds.

jasonbirder
04-03-2007, 06:53 AM
Well as the Germans were defeated on the Eastern Front by the Russian army...and even today it is difficult to see whether the Allied bomber campaign was more damaging to the Allies themselves or their German targets...I'll have to go with the IL2 Sturmovik

GIAP.Shura
04-03-2007, 07:02 AM
Hard to say...the itching powder dropped by the Americans had less irritability but lasted longer, whereas the Soviet sneezing powder had more explosive, short term results. I'm going to have to go with the IL-2 out of pure unadulterated squadron bias.

Breeze147
04-03-2007, 07:07 AM
The P-51.

tigertalon
04-03-2007, 08:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Breeze147:
The P-51. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We have the WINAAAA!

(was waiting like a hawk for the first one to mention it) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

jarink
04-03-2007, 08:59 AM
B-17! (like I'd say anything else?) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Seriously, though, the Red Army could have won the battles on the Eastern Front without the IL-2. There's no way the Allies could have done what they did in the ETO without the heavy bomber. Besides crippling Germany's oil industry, they were instrumental (as bait, if nothing else) in the establishment of air superiority. No air superiority, no D-Day. No D-Day, the war would have lasted into 1946 at least.

djetz
04-03-2007, 09:02 AM
Hitler, Stalin, Tojo: moustachioed.

Churchill, Roosevelt, de Gaulle: clean shaven.

I think the inference is clear.

However, I think it's also important to take into account the bald/hairy factor when considering the Russian leadership since the Revolution:

Lenin: bald
Stalin: hairy
Khrushchev: bald
Brezhnev: hairy
Andropov: bald
Chernenko: hairy
Gorbachev: bald
Yeltsin: hairy
Putin: bald(ing)

I think the conclusion is obvious. And Vladimir had best keep his eye on bald men with moustaches.

Waldo.Pepper
04-03-2007, 09:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Another absurdist thread. Like asking which is more important: the Sistine Chapel or a McDonalds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sistine Chapel - what do I win?

alert_1
04-03-2007, 10:35 AM
I vote for B17, I cant imagine how cold be Germany defeated without continuously hampering its fuel production, electricity and war production. But I CAN imagine that Red Army would defeat Wehrmacht without IL2, maybe without VVS altogether...

amilaninia
04-03-2007, 10:46 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif There is no comparison between tactical aircraft and strategic bombers. P47 vs IL-2 make a better sense. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

p1ngu666
04-03-2007, 10:47 AM
il2

tigertalon
04-03-2007, 11:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by amilaninia:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif There is no comparison between tactical aircraft and strategic bombers. P47 vs IL-2 make a better sense. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This exactly is the reason I started this poll! Topics like P51 vs D9 (or P47 vs IL2) are here on a daily basis. Both plane types I choose contributed greatly to their armies and to the final result - the defeat of Vermacht, and to compare their effect (not the planes alone, as you are trying above) takes a much much wider view.

TgD Thunderbolt56
04-03-2007, 12:11 PM
I think the B-17 game is garbage compared to the IL2 series of sims. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

jasonbirder
04-03-2007, 12:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There's no way the Allies could have done what they did in the ETO without the heavy bomber. Besides crippling Germany's oil industry, they were instrumental (as bait, if nothing else) in the establishment of air superiority. No air superiority, no D-Day. No D-Day, the war would have lasted into 1946 at least </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats putting the cart before the horse...what significant damage the strategic bombing campaign did inflict on Germany didn't occur until Autumn 1944 onwards...

Monty_Thrud
04-03-2007, 12:50 PM
B17 was bodacious dude..i thoroughly enjoyed it, i was hoping someone like Shockwave would take it on and improve the graphics.

IL2 is still a mother beautiful Sim and wins for me...however, theres always room for just one more.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/typing.gif

Cajun76
04-03-2007, 02:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by amilaninia:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif There is no comparison between tactical aircraft and strategic bombers. P47 vs IL-2 make a better sense. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

P-47 for teh win, then! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


As for the debate, it's too apples and oranges. Both were successful in their theater, but did it in very different ways.

However, the B-17 was involves in tactical bombing as well, even though most of the USSAF leadership was generally opposed to doing anything that smacked of joint force with the regular Army so they could bring about a separate Air Force.

VW-IceFire
04-03-2007, 03:06 PM
To boil it down for some of you...the question really isn't about two planes but put in the larger context its about two different components of fighting a war. The IL-2 more generally represents the tactical air war while the B-17 is strategic.

I'll vote IL-2 as tactical air warfare has been shown to have a positive impact on friendly morale, a negative impact on enemy morale, and can legitimately claim having a direct impact on the battlefield.

Strategic efforts have a more mixed backdrop. Enemy morale was generally not reduced except under more specific circumstances and friendly morale benefits are also somewhat difficult as bombers tended to have high loss rates and turn over in personnel. Destruction to targets is also somewhat vague as shown with the bombing of Germany where factories were back up and running...sometimes within days depending on the damage. It seems that strategic warfare has to be so utterly devastating as to annihilate the target to achieve its goal and then the goal becomes somewhat questionable.

WWSensei
04-03-2007, 04:57 PM
My belief was that the B-17s primary usefulness was in acting as bait to allow the Allied air forces to destroy the Luftwaffe and achieve air superiority. Some of their bomb damage may have accounted for some effect, but what made D-Day possible wasn't that the German was lacking tanks or men or supplies, but that the Allies owned the air by then.

VW-IceFire
04-03-2007, 05:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
My belief was that the B-17s primary usefulness was in acting as bait to allow the Allied air forces to destroy the Luftwaffe and achieve air superiority. Some of their bomb damage may have accounted for some effect, but what made D-Day possible wasn't that the German was lacking tanks or men or supplies, but that the Allies owned the air by then. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Indeed...all of the guns, radar, ammo, fighter groups, R&D for making better bomber interceptors and weapons, and so forth is no small amount of drain nevermind the actual losses incurred going up against the bomber formations. That does seem to be the real damage.

WWSpinDry
04-03-2007, 06:23 PM
The Luftwaffe was doomed almost before the first bomb dropped on Poland.

http://www.amazon.com/Strategy-Defeat-Luftwaffe-William...id=1175645476&sr=8-2 (http://www.amazon.com/Strategy-Defeat-Luftwaffe-Williamson-Murray/dp/016002160X/ref=sr_1_2/104-4449076-3447921?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175645476&sr=8-2)

han freak solo
04-03-2007, 08:39 PM
You oughta see the poll results for the same question on a CFS forum.

VW-IceFire
04-03-2007, 09:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by han freak solo:
You oughta see the poll results for the same question on a CFS forum. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes but were more learned than they are http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Treetop64
04-04-2007, 12:47 AM
It's spelled "learnd-ded" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

FrenziedAU
04-04-2007, 03:29 AM
I voted for IL-2 for two reasons.
Firstly, close in battlefield support can be very useful, partially by inflicting damage, and partially by making the enemy more cautious.
Secondly, and the main reason, there were other planes that could do the B-17's job to a similar level of effectiveness(e.g. B-24), but no other planes that could do the IL-2's job as well.