Miss Betty

m10bob · Post by **m10bob** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 3:31 pm

I think I posted this maybe 2 years ago..For the new folks:

Anthropoid · Post by **Anthropoid** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 3:43 pm

Pretty kewl; thanks for posting for us new guys. Didn't realize they had a little torpedo bay like that.

RUPD3658 · Post by **RUPD3658** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 4:05 pm

We hates the Bettys hates them we do......[:@]

m10bob · Post by **m10bob** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 4:12 pm

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Pretty kewl; thanks for posting for us new guys. Didn't realize they had a little torpedo bay like that.

Seamus, you may note anytime Betty carried torps or bombs, the bay door panels were removed from the plane.
If you ever see the doors on the plane, it is empty.

Long Lance · Post by **Long Lance** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 4:59 pm

She's a beauty, without doubt.
 
But she's bitch, whether she's for you or against you.
 
I guess that is what makes a bitch out of a beauty[;)]

Anthropoid · Post by **Anthropoid** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 6:53 pm

So I had a look at the wiki for Betty bomber . . . doesn't really _sound_ like she was all that fearsome?
 

Allied fighter pilots to give it the derisive nicknames "one-shot lighter", "flying Zippo" and "flying cigar". Similarly, pilots of the Imperial Japanese Navy called the G4M the "Type One Lighter" and "Hamaki" ("Cigar"). This was due to the fact that on many occasions, it was used for low-altitude torpedo attacks where its performance advantages were negated. The "Betty"'s relatively-large size made it a large target to shoot at, and the simplified approach path on a torpedo run to attack a ship, meant for a generally easy interception.

 
Remembering one of those themes from Shattered Sword about poor fuel handling and thinking to myself "Gee, the Japanese do not seem to have worried to much about their weapons systems being vulnerable to fire?"
 
I guess the Japanese never came up with anything quite so cool as a B-17 eh?

Shark7 · Post by **Shark7** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 8:21 pm

ORIGINAL: RUPD3658

We hates the Bettys hates them we do......[:@]

No, the Bettys loves us. Gives us torpedoes the Bettys do. [;)]

Shark7 · Post by **Shark7** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 8:33 pm

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

So I had a look at the wiki for Betty bomber . . . doesn't really _sound_ like she was all that fearsome?

Allied fighter pilots to give it the derisive nicknames "one-shot lighter", "flying Zippo" and "flying cigar". Similarly, pilots of the Imperial Japanese Navy called the G4M the "Type One Lighter" and "Hamaki" ("Cigar"). This was due to the fact that on many occasions, it was used for low-altitude torpedo attacks where its performance advantages were negated. The "Betty"'s relatively-large size made it a large target to shoot at, and the simplified approach path on a torpedo run to attack a ship, meant for a generally easy interception.

Remembering one of those themes from Shattered Sword about poor fuel handling and thinking to myself "Gee, the Japanese do not seem to have worried to much about their weapons systems being vulnerable to fire?"

I guess the Japanese never came up with anything quite so cool as a B-17 eh?

No, they had some good designs that might have shamed the B-17, problem was, they could never afford to actually mass produce them.

Example: G10N Fugaku http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijna/g10n.htm

Mac67 · Post by **Mac67** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 8:41 pm

Great pic. Reminds me of the artwork Roy Cross used to do for the box covers of the old Airfix kits [8D]

Fallschirmjager · Post by **Fallschirmjager** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 9:55 pm

Nice panting, but it missed the ship by about 110 degrees.

wdolson · Post by **wdolson** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 10:20 pm

The art is from the Tamiya 1/48 scale Betty kit.  I have two of them in the closet.[:)]

Bill

rtrapasso · Post by **rtrapasso** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:25 pm

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

Nice panting, but it missed the ship by about 110 degrees.

Missed the ship in the background... but there were 2 of them (big ships) there and i suspect Ms. Betty is going for the other one.

Fallschirmjager · Post by **Fallschirmjager** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 12:31 am

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

Nice panting, but it missed the ship by about 110 degrees.
Missed the ship in the background... but there were 2 of them (big ships) there and i suspect Ms. Betty is going for the other one.

That was my (weak) attempt at a joke.

wdolson · Post by **wdolson** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 12:36 am

If I recall, the painting on the box is supposed to depict the sinking of the Prince of Wales and Repulse.

Bill

AirGriff · Post by **AirGriff** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 1:06 am

If it's one thing I hate worse than a Betty, it's a Frances [:(][:@]

bradfordkay · Post by **bradfordkay** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 3:19 am

"So I had a look at the wiki for Betty bomber . . . doesn't really _sound_ like she was all that fearsome?"

She can carry a torpedo an awfully long way. Couple that with a lot of long range fighters and they make for tough days for enemy shipping. No allied SCTFs can start a drive-by bombardment run form outside the Betty's torpedo range, so the nuclear base bombardment by SCTF option is less available to the allied player.

DivePac88 · Post by **DivePac88** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 5:41 am

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: RUPD3658

We hates the Bettys hates them we do......[:@]

No, the Bettys loves us. Gives us torpedoes the Bettys do. [;)]

Managess to sneakese HMSes Repulesse and Coyses under Bettiese and Preciousess noisiess? (See AAR)

ChezDaJez · Post by **ChezDaJez** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:04 am

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"So I had a look at the wiki for Betty bomber . . . doesn't really _sound_ like she was all that fearsome?"

She can carry a torpedo an awfully long way. Couple that with a lot of long range fighters and they make for tough days for enemy shipping. No allied SCTFs can start a drive-by bombardment run form outside the Betty's torpedo range, so the nuclear base bombardment by SCTF option is less available to the allied player.

True...at least early in the game. If the allied player has any air cover available at all, Miss Betty gets burned! Even without air cover, once the allied surface ships begin their AA upgrades, Miss Betty and her girlfriends get burned!

Chez

castor troy · Post by **castor troy** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:24 am

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"So I had a look at the wiki for Betty bomber . . . doesn't really _sound_ like she was all that fearsome?"

She can carry a torpedo an awfully long way. Couple that with a lot of long range fighters and they make for tough days for enemy shipping. No allied SCTFs can start a drive-by bombardment run form outside the Betty's torpedo range, so the nuclear base bombardment by SCTF option is less available to the allied player.

True...at least early in the game. If the allied player has any air cover available at all, Miss Betty gets burned! Even without air cover, once the allied surface ships begin their AA upgrades, Miss Betty and her girlfriends get burned!

Chez

yeah, Betties and Nells are a pain for the Allied in 42 but from 43 on it´s an Allied own´s fault if he doesn´t make Betty strikes really costly. And they are useless for anything else than nav strikes. They are of course deadly for every TF that is uncapped and doesn´t have heavy flak defense, no matter what date. But with the years going by, their exp will drop considerable and they lose their strenght quite quickly...

sprior · Post by **sprior** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:33 am

ORIGINAL: Mac67

Great pic. Reminds me of the artwork Roy Cross used to do for the box covers of the old Airfix kits [8D]

Airfix is back!

Miss Betty

Miss Betty

RE: Miss Betty

RE: Miss Betty

RE: Miss Betty

RE: Miss Betty

RE: Miss Betty

RE: Miss Betty

RE: Miss Betty

RE: Miss Betty

RE: Miss Betty

RE: Miss Betty

RE: Miss Betty

RE: Miss Betty

RE: Miss Betty

RE: Miss Betty

RE: Miss Betty

RE: Miss Betty

RE: Miss Betty

RE: Miss Betty

RE: Miss Betty