Page 1 of 4
Miss Betty
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 3:31 pm
by m10bob
I think I posted this maybe 2 years ago..For the new folks:
RE: Miss Betty
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 3:43 pm
by Anthropoid
Pretty kewl; thanks for posting for us new guys. Didn't realize they had a little torpedo bay like that.
RE: Miss Betty
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 4:05 pm
by RUPD3658
We hates the Bettys hates them we do......[:@]
RE: Miss Betty
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 4:12 pm
by m10bob
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.
RE: Miss Betty
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 4:59 pm
by Long Lance
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[;)]
RE: Miss Betty
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 6:53 pm
by 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?
RE: Miss Betty
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 8:21 pm
by Shark7
ORIGINAL: RUPD3658
We hates the Bettys hates them we do......[:@]
No, the Bettys loves us. Gives us torpedoes the Bettys do. [;)]
RE: Miss Betty
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 8:33 pm
by Shark7
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
RE: Miss Betty
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 8:41 pm
by Mac67
Great pic. Reminds me of the artwork Roy Cross used to do for the box covers of the old Airfix kits [8D]
RE: Miss Betty
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 9:55 pm
by Fallschirmjager
Nice panting, but it missed the ship by about 110 degrees.
RE: Miss Betty
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 10:20 pm
by wdolson
The art is from the Tamiya 1/48 scale Betty kit. I have two of them in the closet.[:)]
Bill
RE: Miss Betty
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:25 pm
by 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.
RE: Miss Betty
Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 12:31 am
by Fallschirmjager
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.
RE: Miss Betty
Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 12:36 am
by wdolson
If I recall, the painting on the box is supposed to depict the sinking of the Prince of Wales and Repulse.
Bill
RE: Miss Betty
Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 1:06 am
by AirGriff
If it's one thing I hate worse than a Betty, it's a Frances [:(][:@]
RE: Miss Betty
Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 3:19 am
by 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.
RE: Miss Betty
Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 5:41 am
by DivePac88
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)
RE: Miss Betty
Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:04 am
by 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
RE: Miss Betty
Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:24 am
by castor troy
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...
RE: Miss Betty
Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:33 am
by sprior
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!