Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

B-17 supremacy

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> B-17 supremacy Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
B-17 supremacy - 2/4/2012 3:25:43 PM   
btbw

 

Posts: 379
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline 		So WITP AE still have same stupid level bomb system like WITP?
Post #: 1
RE: B-17 supremacy - 2/4/2012 3:34:45 PM   
pompack


Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

no

(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 2
RE: B-17 supremacy - 2/4/2012 3:54:50 PM   
bk19@mweb.co.za

 

Posts: 258
Joined: 7/26/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack



no


A bit brief that.....

You could have used, non, nein, nyet, not bloody likely.... Heck, there wasn't even any punctuation!

On the other hand this may also have been an appropriate response to such an allegation.




(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 3
RE: B-17 supremacy - 2/4/2012 3:54:56 PM   
btbw

 

Posts: 379
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline 		My experience said YES.
Here example how wonderful B-17 and how devastate them which never happen in really.

Morning Air attack on Noumea , at 115,160

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 33 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
     A6M2 Zero x 31



Allied aircraft
     B-17D Fortress x 1
     B-17E Fortress x 38


Japanese aircraft losses
     A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
     B-17D Fortress: 1 damaged
     B-17E Fortress: 1 destroyed, 13 damaged

Japanese Ships
     CV Soryu, Bomb hits 5,  heavy fires,  heavy damage
     BB Kirishima, Bomb hits 1
     CV Kaga, Bomb hits 2,  on fire,  heavy damage
     CV Shokaku, Bomb hits 1

Japanese ground losses:
     5 casualties reported
        Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
        Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
        Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled



Port hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
      2 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 13000 feet *
              Port Attack:  4 x 500 lb GP Bomb
      6 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 13000 feet *
              Port Attack:  4 x 500 lb GP Bomb
      2 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 13000 feet *
              Port Attack:  4 x 500 lb GP Bomb
      5 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 13000 feet *
              Port Attack:  4 x 500 lb GP Bomb
      3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 13000 feet *
              Port Attack:  4 x 500 lb GP Bomb
      5 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 13000 feet *
              Port Attack:  4 x 500 lb GP Bomb
      2 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 13000 feet *
              Port Attack:  4 x 500 lb GP Bomb
      1 x B-17D Fortress bombing from 13000 feet *
              Port Attack:  4 x 500 lb GP Bomb
      7 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 13000 feet *
              Port Attack:  4 x 500 lb GP Bomb
      2 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 13000 feet *
              Port Attack:  4 x 500 lb GP Bomb
      2 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 13000 feet *
              Port Attack:  4 x 500 lb GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
Hiryu-1 with A6M2 Zero (2 airborne, 4 on standby, 6 scrambling)
     2 plane(s) intercepting now.
     Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters to 15000.
     Time for all group planes to reach interception is 32 minutes
Kaga-1 with A6M2 Zero (1 airborne, 2 on standby, 0 scrambling)
     1 plane(s) intercepting now.
     Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters to 15000.
     Time for all group planes to reach interception is 9 minutes
Soryu-1 with A6M2 Zero (2 airborne, 6 on standby, 0 scrambling)
     2 plane(s) intercepting now.
     Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters to 15000.
     Time for all group planes to reach interception is 9 minutes
Shokaku-1 with A6M2 Zero (2 airborne, 6 on standby, 0 scrambling)
     2 plane(s) intercepting now.
     Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters to 15000.
     Time for all group planes to reach interception is 9 minutes

Kasai S. in a A6M2 Zero makes head on attack ... forces B-17E Fortress out of formation
Ammo storage explosion on CV Soryu

(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 4
RE: B-17 supremacy - 2/4/2012 3:58:58 PM   
Grfin Zeppelin


Posts: 1515
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline 		Well ships at anchor are very vulnerable. A couple of Hudsons could have accomplished a similar result. Especially against such a minicap. (with some luck I admit)

< Message edited by Gräfin Zeppelin -- 2/4/2012 3:59:04 PM >

_____________________________



(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 5
RE: B-17 supremacy - 2/4/2012 4:00:10 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline 		Ouch.

Disbanding carriers in port within heavy bomber range at a base without or bad radar?

Big boo.

_____________________________


(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 6
RE: B-17 supremacy - 2/4/2012 4:00:56 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline 		Did you actually have your carriers disbanded in port within B17 range of your enemy? Also, you are aware of diminished CAP efficacy by fleet CVs in a port hex, aren't you?

There's probably a host of other issues that need to be looked at. Your post doesn't provide sufficient information for any meaningful advice.

ETA: I love it. 3 posts within 2 minutes on the topic.

_____________________________


(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 7
RE: B-17 supremacy - 2/4/2012 4:03:08 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline 		Saturday.

_____________________________


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 8
RE: B-17 supremacy - 2/4/2012 4:04:14 PM   
bk19@mweb.co.za

 

Posts: 258
Joined: 7/26/2011
Status: offline 		Hmmm... how difficult do you believe it would be for an experience bomb aimer (and pilot) to hit a stable ship at anchor from 15,000 feet? Given that an aircraft carrier is probably the size of a small football field, and not moving... I would submit it is way easier to do than if the same target was underway.


(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 9
RE: B-17 supremacy - 2/4/2012 4:08:16 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: btbw

My experience said YES.
Here example how wonderful B-17 and how devastate them which never happen in really.


You are absolutely correct. The IJN never would disband carriers into a port within 4E range and insufficient CAP. Never happened in reality.

EDIT: So yes, WitPAE is exactly the same as WitP in this area. Players can make any mistake they want and the game will "faithfully" reward them.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 10
RE: B-17 supremacy - 2/4/2012 4:09:45 PM   
Grfin Zeppelin


Posts: 1515
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: btbw

My experience said YES.
Here example how wonderful B-17 and how devastate them which never happen in really.


You are absolutely correct. The IJN never would disband carriers into a port within 4E range and insufficient CAP. Never happened in reality.




_____________________________



(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 11
RE: B-17 supremacy - 2/4/2012 4:10:52 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

Well ships at anchor are very vulnerable. A couple of Hudsons could have accomplished a similar result. Especially against such a minicap. (with some luck I admit)

Totally wrong, GZ.

Two Hudsons wouldn't carry 9 bombs between 'em.

_____________________________


(in reply to Grfin Zeppelin)
Post #: 12
RE: B-17 supremacy - 2/4/2012 4:13:00 PM   
Grfin Zeppelin


Posts: 1515
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

Well ships at anchor are very vulnerable. A couple of Hudsons could have accomplished a similar result. Especially against such a minicap. (with some luck I admit)

Totally wrong, GZ.

Two Hudsons wouldn't carry 9 bombs between 'em.

Grrrrrrr

_____________________________



(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 13
RE: B-17 supremacy - 2/4/2012 4:13:34 PM   
btbw

 

Posts: 379
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline 		Some digits.
Area of Noumea port around 5 square km.
Accuracy of B-17 on Pacific theater around 30% in 1000 feet round from aiming point.
Only first bomb going to targetted area, all other laying in string with delay=huge distance between.
What we see in report?
Despite on hard damage from aces on Zeros, all B-17 sections scoring a hit. And it with limitation on 1 bomb hit per plane ( see "Only first bomb going to targetted area, all other laying in string with delay=huge distance between.").
Bombers make 10 hits ( 8 to ships and 2 to port buildings with 5 casualties in it).
Simple math give to us effectivness  of that B-17s.
ONE B-17 BOMBER CAN GUARANTIED SHOT ANYTHING IN AREA OF 350x350 meters.
WHOA!


(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 14
RE: B-17 supremacy - 2/4/2012 4:15:39 PM   
btbw

 

Posts: 379
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline 		Carrier battle was before so cap cutted and CV need emergency repair.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 15
RE: B-17 supremacy - 2/4/2012 4:17:23 PM   
btbw

 

Posts: 379
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline 		I dont ask about where disband carriers.
I ask about who make Loser Bomber same effective as Dive Bomber?
How i understand not many people here know about bombing.

< Message edited by btbw -- 2/4/2012 4:18:15 PM >

(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 16
RE: B-17 supremacy - 2/4/2012 4:21:45 PM   
btbw

 

Posts: 379
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: btbw

My experience said YES.
Here example how wonderful B-17 and how devastate them which never happen in really.


You are absolutely correct. The IJN never would disband carriers into a port within 4E range and insufficient CAP. Never happened in reality.

EDIT: So yes, WitPAE is exactly the same as WitP in this area. Players can make any mistake they want and the game will "faithfully" reward them.

Very sarcastic but after carrier battle near Brisbane can you show me way how save 2 carriers from major fire and floating?
Mr. Genius

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 17
RE: B-17 supremacy - 2/4/2012 4:30:35 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: btbw
after carrier battle near Brisbane can you show me way how save 2 carriers from major fire and floating?


According to your experience probably not by disbanding them in range of a potential retaliation strike?

btbw, my advice would be to calm down, reassess the situation, accept you made a big mistake by getting
your CVs damaged far from safety in the first place, and then by disbanding them in port in the face of enemy
heavy bombers, and then wise up and move on.

From what I see 37 B17s whacked some nice big static targets. Don´t confuse naval attack routine with a port strike.

You wont get much sympathy by blaming the game for your own errors.

_____________________________


(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 18
RE: B-17 supremacy - 2/4/2012 4:33:36 PM   
btbw

 

Posts: 379
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: btbw
after carrier battle near Brisbane can you show me way how save 2 carriers from major fire and floating?


According to your experience probably not by disbanding them in range of a potential retaliation strike?

btbw, my advice would be to calm down, reassess the situation, accept you made a big mistake by getting
your CVs damaged far from safety in the first place, and then by disbanding them in port in the face of enemy
heavy bombers, and then wise up and move on.

From what I see 37 B17s whacked some nice big static targets. Don´t confuse naval attack routine with a port strike.

You wont get much sympathy by blaming the game for your own errors.

Why you talking about me? Can you reveal how B-17 can have same bomb accuracy like Helldiver? Umm?
No?
Touche.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 19
RE: B-17 supremacy - 2/4/2012 4:35:06 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: btbw

Very sarcastic but after carrier battle near Brisbane can you show me way how save 2 carriers from major fire and floating?
Mr. Genius


Sorry, but you seem to be under the false impression that there is a solution to every problem. IRL, there are problems for which there is no solution.

If you had damaged carriers from action that deep into allied territory, then the expectation is that they are indeed lost. That is why those raids were rarely done. There is, in fact, huge risk in doing them. You wish to do actions which IRL were highly risky and then to have an unrealistic outcome and blame the game. I don't claim to be Mr. Genius, but I am smart enough to understand the risks inherent with your type of op and avoid them.

Continue to blame the game for your actions and there is a name for that.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 20
RE: B-17 supremacy - 2/4/2012 4:40:16 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: btbw
Why you talking about me?


LOL, tbh I have no idea. First I thought you just did not understand the root cause of your defeat and needed help, now I rather believe you
should chose an easier game...


_____________________________


(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 21
RE: B-17 supremacy - 2/4/2012 4:58:23 PM   
Empire101


Posts: 1950
Joined: 5/20/2008
From: Coruscant
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: btbw

Very sarcastic but after carrier battle near Brisbane can you show me way how save 2 carriers from major fire and floating?
Mr. Genius


Sorry, but you seem to be under the false impression that there is a solution to every problem. IRL, there are problems for which there is no solution.

If you had damaged carriers from action that deep into allied territory, then the expectation is that they are indeed lost. That is why those raids were rarely done. There is, in fact, huge risk in doing them. You wish to do actions which IRL were highly risky and then to have an unrealistic outcome and blame the game. I don't claim to be Mr. Genius, but I am smart enough to understand the risks inherent with your type of op and avoid them.

Continue to blame the game for your actions and there is a name for that.



ORIGINAL: LoBaron

LOL, tbh I have no idea. First I thought you just did not understand the root cause of your defeat and needed help, now I rather believe you
should chose an easier game...


+1 to both of the above.


btbw, please lower the anti.....people are only trying to help.


_____________________________

Our lives may be more boring than those who lived in apocalyptic times,
but being bored is greatly preferable to being prematurely dead because of some ideological fantasy. - Michael Burleigh


(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 22
RE: B-17 supremacy - 2/4/2012 5:01:30 PM   
btbw

 

Posts: 379
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline 		LOL. Why you talk about carriers? Mistakes? Me? It example.
40 B-17 attacked ships in port. 8 hits in flattops, 2 hits in port buildings.
B-17 SO SMART. They dont attackes ML stayed here, 3 CAs, bunch of merchants etc.
Wonderful B-17 directly attacked and hitted ONLY main ships like swarm of dive bombers.
I understand when AB/DB/TB choose who to attack and make 25% hits from their attacks. It close to historical and it why that classes was born.
BUT.
Slow stupid blind B-17 maintained course (for gain accuracy, change speed on 10mph or alt for 100 feet and you will lose for 100-200 feet from aim point even if you luck, no maneurs - it stop bomb sight work and need to make attack round again, clinbs do miss too) without ability for TARGET except leader  ( in that big pool under feets). All bombers going from SAME course (it mean not individual targeting and correcting course with sighting on enemy ships). All drop bombs with leader (it give small chance to carpet area and hit target with may be ONE bomb).
So how 8 B-17 hit ONLY flattops on area on 5000000 square meters without hitting other ships?
I see here WRONG formula. Level bombers must have area effect formula and damage ships despite of their rank or size.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 23
RE: B-17 supremacy - 2/4/2012 5:06:31 PM   
btbw

 

Posts: 379
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline 		So guys try be constructive and dont see where carriers, how much CAP and what i must to do with all your opinions how to do something.
B-17, accuracy, selectivity - it target of this thread.
JFYI accuracy of B-17 against dot-target like warship was near 1%.
Accuracy against area target like huge building - 30%.
ONLY ONE warship touched by B-17


< Message edited by btbw -- 2/4/2012 5:08:03 PM >

(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 24
RE: B-17 supremacy - 2/4/2012 5:07:00 PM   
bk19@mweb.co.za

 

Posts: 258
Joined: 7/26/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: btbw

LOL. Why you talk about carriers? Mistakes? Me? It example.
40 B-17 attacked ships in port. 8 hits in flattops, 2 hits in port buildings.
B-17 SO SMART. They dont attackes ML stayed here, 3 CAs, bunch of merchants etc.
Wonderful B-17 directly attacked and hitted ONLY main ships like swarm of dive bombers.
I understand when AB/DB/TB choose who to attack and make 25% hits from their attacks. It close to historical and it why that classes was born.
BUT.
Slow stupid blind B-17 maintained course (for gain accuracy, change speed on 10mph or alt for 100 feet and you will lose for 100-200 feet from aim point even if you luck, no maneurs - it stop bomb sight work and need to make attack round again, clinbs do miss too) without ability for TARGET except leader  ( in that big pool under feets). All bombers going from SAME course (it mean not individual targeting and correcting course with sighting on enemy ships). All drop bombs with leader (it give small chance to carpet area and hit target with may be ONE bomb).
So how 8 B-17 hit ONLY flattops on area on 5000000 square meters without hitting other ships?
I see here WRONG formula. Level bombers must have area effect formula and damage ships despite of their rank or size.



To replicate anything like this kind of detailed behaviour you will need to be using a game that models these aspects with a much finer degree of granularity. Have a look at Microsoft Flight Simulator or other simulators of its kind.

In a game such as this, unless you have a quantum chip set on a very expensive PC you are unlikely to be able to model the dynamic behaviour that you seek.



(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 25
RE: B-17 supremacy - 2/4/2012 5:14:02 PM   
btbw

 

Posts: 379
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bk19@mweb.co.za


quote:

ORIGINAL: btbw

LOL. Why you talk about carriers? Mistakes? Me? It example.
40 B-17 attacked ships in port. 8 hits in flattops, 2 hits in port buildings.
B-17 SO SMART. They dont attackes ML stayed here, 3 CAs, bunch of merchants etc.
Wonderful B-17 directly attacked and hitted ONLY main ships like swarm of dive bombers.
I understand when AB/DB/TB choose who to attack and make 25% hits from their attacks. It close to historical and it why that classes was born.
BUT.
Slow stupid blind B-17 maintained course (for gain accuracy, change speed on 10mph or alt for 100 feet and you will lose for 100-200 feet from aim point even if you luck, no maneurs - it stop bomb sight work and need to make attack round again, clinbs do miss too) without ability for TARGET except leader  ( in that big pool under feets). All bombers going from SAME course (it mean not individual targeting and correcting course with sighting on enemy ships). All drop bombs with leader (it give small chance to carpet area and hit target with may be ONE bomb).
So how 8 B-17 hit ONLY flattops on area on 5000000 square meters without hitting other ships?
I see here WRONG formula. Level bombers must have area effect formula and damage ships despite of their rank or size.



To replicate anything like this kind of detailed behaviour you will need to be using a game that models these aspects with a much finer degree of granularity. Have a look at Microsoft Flight Simulator or other simulators of its kind.

In a game such as this, unless you have a quantum chip set on a very expensive PC you are unlikely to be able to model the dynamic behaviour that you seek.




OMG. It all? We dont have wargame? We have game with war theater and non-historical, non-realistic airplanes inside?
Dude, why you need WITP AE then?
Quantum chip, lol. Bachelor with some knowledge of probability theory can make model of Level bombing. You dont need to have quantum chip and Jakob Bernoulli for that.

(in reply to bk19@mweb.co.za)
Post #: 26
RE: B-17 supremacy - 2/4/2012 5:16:27 PM   
David The Great

 

Posts: 98
Joined: 10/3/2008
Status: offline 		Nothing points to the fact that 1 bomber hits 1 ship, being docked in rows one could argue that 1 bomber hits several ships.
About the hit chance, out of 312 bombs dropped only 9 hit targets, the one on the BB has minor effect, being not able to penetrate, the other is a different story, so the hit chance is rather low, you should be glad he dit not fly his mission at 100 ft. As written before, putting ships in port in range of 4E bombers is a risk, one i would rather not take.

< Message edited by David The Great -- 2/4/2012 5:17:10 PM >

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 27
RE: B-17 supremacy - 2/4/2012 5:33:47 PM   
Grfin Zeppelin


Posts: 1515
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline 		So your carriers were damaged and burning you disbanded them at port, thats fine and reasonable but, all of them ? Next time leave the cripples behind and move the rest into safety.
Also in such a situation remove the planes especially the fighters and place them at the airfield to protect your precious and fly in even more fighters.

These are things you could have done after bringing yourself in this kind of mess. As stated before, using carriers in remote locations is risky and if something goes wrong yer in big podoo.

Your situation only barely has something to do with are 4Es broken or OP or not. You made a mess out of it and need to rethink that whole situation.

YOU operated them there, YOU disbanded them at a port so stop blaming and draw your conclusions.

< Message edited by Gräfin Zeppelin -- 2/4/2012 5:51:47 PM >

_____________________________



(in reply to David The Great)
Post #: 28
RE: B-17 supremacy - 2/4/2012 5:39:37 PM   
d0mbo

 

Posts: 592
Joined: 8/21/2009
From: Holland
Status: offline 		Guys, btbw is convinced the game is WRONG and he is RIGHT. Nothing is going to alter his thinking right now. This happens a lot to people who lose irreplaceable CV's, for whatever reason. It could be you or me the next time :)

btbw: don't post when you are mad. It only creates an ugly and unpleasant thread like this one. Come back when you have settled down and you are able to make reasonable posts.
Even if you would have a point right now, the way you post in this thread won't help to get it across to others.







(in reply to David The Great)
Post #: 29
RE: B-17 supremacy - 2/4/2012 5:44:08 PM   
btbw

 

Posts: 379
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

So your carriers were damaged and burning you disbanded them at port, that fine and reasonable but, all of them ? Next time leave the cripples behind and move the rest into safety.
Also in such a situation remove the planes especially the fighters and place them at the airfield to protect your precious and fly in even more fighters.

These are things you could have done after bringing yourself in this kind of mess. As stated before, using carriers in remote locations is risky and if something goes wrong yer in big podoo.

Your situation only barely has something to do with are 4Es broken or OP or not. You made a mess out of it and need to rethink that whole situation.

Thank you for lesson. But again. I dont worry about these scenario.
I talking about bug in game.
B-17, right now, it long-range, well-protected, well-defended DIVE BOMBER.
In really, they was useless againt maritime and slightly useful against land targets (area).
It all what i want by opening this thread - B-17 as level-bomber.
In my cause AAR must look like 1-2 hits in flattops and 6-7 hits in a hundred other ships and harbour.
It how work real math for area bombers.

(in reply to Grfin Zeppelin)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> B-17 supremacy Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.922