Author Topic: B-25 (Read 3533 times)

Krusty · « **Reply #30 on:** August 23, 2005, 11:43:01 PM »

The armor of tigers doesn't erode with millions of little hits. It's so dense that the light rounds just bounce off, not eroding the material at all. Might make a small series of dents, but I doubt it.

If we got the hard nose, the only problem is a top speed of 275mph. Nobody's going to catch bombers with that! Especially when P47 with 8x50cal flies 400+

But it would be fun to duel them, no?

Phaser11 · « **Reply #31 on:** August 24, 2005, 06:29:09 AM »

Just a quick note here,
The were 15 B-29's assigned to the 509th group. They were called Silverplate and designed to carry the A-Bombs. They could also carry regular bombs. They used to practice with something called a pumpkin bomb
Here is a link to the B-29 web site with great stories and other information. http://b-29.org
My uncle, TSgt Rod Arnold was the flight Engineer on the B-29 Bockscar, the second A-Bomb mission aircraft. The crew was replaced by the CO's crew (RHIP) and flew in the second chase aircraft (dropping instrument packages) The Great Artiste.
While at the Air force Museum I look in the archives for the aircraft forms and found his signature there.
His stories were allways interesting and full of adventure!

Whisky58 · « **Reply #32 on:** August 24, 2005, 06:39:53 AM »

B25s from CVs (stripped down or otherwise) would be good. I've just moved over from years in the wilderness of Warbirds (hoots of derision) & it's an option there. Doolittle raid was cv launched but can anyone tell me if there were others plse?
As for B29s - come on guys, 360mph, 25k, 20000lbs - fun to be in but not exactly adding much to the competitive element of the game - eh?

Blammo · « **Reply #33 on:** August 24, 2005, 10:54:37 AM »

Yes...we definitely need to B-25

Tails · « **Reply #34 on:** August 24, 2005, 03:48:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
While I like the hard nose idea, I also read that it only had 400 rpg for the "8-pack" in the nose, and each cheek blister had only 400rpg as well. Sure it would only take one burst to destroy something, but you'd only get so many bursts before guns dry

So I'd take the ord to start things off then finish with guns.

400rnd/gun is on the low side of average for fifties. You just need to be light on the trigger, is all.

I'd still prefer the BFG package, though

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #35 on:** August 24, 2005, 03:52:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by parker00

And when it fired it felt like the aircraft had "hit a brick wall", but with its 2.95 inch (75 mm) projectile, it could turn a tank into scrap metal and punch very large holes in Japanese destroyers and barges at a range of nearly 2 miles. The Japanese paid dearly for the ideas of Kenney and the ingenuity of Gunn.

Of course a 75mm howitzer shell would turn a Japanese tank into scrap metal. They weren't armored like German tanks, or even US tanks for that matter.

The 75mm was used mostly in strafing soft targets and maritime shipping. IIRC, those units in the PTO that used the B-25H equipped with the 75mm howitzer were later shipped off to the CBI theater where they enjoyed much more success.

ack-ack

SMIDSY · « **Reply #36 on:** August 24, 2005, 04:11:55 PM »

phaser, it dont matter how many B29s were equipped to drop A-bombs. the fact is there were only 4 A-bombs in existance by the end of the war.

ack-ack
i heard an anecdote about a GI who nocked out a japanese light tank with a BAR.

Tails · « **Reply #37 on:** August 24, 2005, 05:03:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Of course a 75mm howitzer shell would turn a Japanese tank into scrap metal. They weren't armored like German tanks, or even US tanks for that matter.

The 75mm was used mostly in strafing soft targets and maritime shipping. IIRC, those units in the PTO that used the B-25H equipped with the 75mm howitzer were later shipped off to the CBI theater where they enjoyed much more success.

ack-ack

From what I've heard, this is the same 75mm gun as the Sherman had. If this is the case, could it not be loaded with AP and fired for the top deck of a tank?

And if this is not the case, could you hold down the person that said it, so I can beat him to death with a dead trout?

Krusty · « **Reply #38 on:** August 24, 2005, 05:22:11 PM »

Tanks are hard targets. It was meant for soft targets. I think it only carried HE rounds. And, as reported, it only did well in areas where the US had superior technology/weaponry and could smack around the weak river barges and lightly defended cargo ships (oooh.. ahhhh...) with impunity. Vs hard targets you'd not bother screwing around with a 75mm gun as you'd be shot down before you fired round 1 from it.

Grits · « **Reply #39 on:** August 24, 2005, 05:47:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tails
From what I've heard, this is the same 75mm gun as the Sherman had. If this is the case, could it not be loaded with AP and fired for the top deck of a tank?

The 75mm M4 and later the T13E1 75mm used in the G and H were both cannons, not howitzers, although they were very low velocity. The M4 is identical to the short barrel 75mm gun in the first Shermans, while the T13E1 was only different in that it was lightened for aircraft use. It could fire an AP round just like the Sherman, but if they did or not, I have no idea.

Tails · « **Reply #40 on:** August 24, 2005, 05:56:01 PM »

If they were used on shipping and/or tanks, I would assume they had AP rounds for them, or atleast some kind of API or HEAT shell. I'm gonna try digging around and see what I see.

Karnak · « **Reply #41 on:** August 24, 2005, 08:05:18 PM »

If they enable the B-25 from CVs when it is introduced they might as well enable P-47s and Spitfire Mk XIVs from CVs as they also flew into combat from CVs.

Obviously I disagree with this. Only enable designed CV aircraft on CVs.