Perk US bombers

[Krusty]

The only problem with the A-26 is it would be an attacker only. It would take up fighter perks, NOT bomber perks.

Unless you got the glass nose, then it would be a level bomber and formations would be enabled. I can just hear the masses rioting if they don't get their 8-gun solid nose, though.

Look at the A20G. Solid nose = no bombsight = no formation, and I think it's an attacker, not a bomber (even though it comes from the bomber hangars).

[Bronk]

Originally posted by tedrbr
Deal....so long as I can buy FIVE of them for my formation!  Three wide, two deep.

Good bye cities and strat factories.....

Deal but you lose all perks if you lose just 1.

I don't get mulligans in my fighter.


Bronk

[Spikes]

Originally posted by Krusty
The only problem with the A-26 is it would be an attacker only. It would take up fighter perks, NOT bomber perks.

Unless you got the glass nose, then it would be a level bomber and formations would be enabled. I can just hear the masses rioting if they don't get their 8-gun solid nose, though.

Look at the A20G. Solid nose = no bombsight = no formation, and I think it's an attacker, not a bomber (even though it comes from the bomber hangars).

True Krusty, I know about the a20, it comes out of a bomber hanger....it is an attacker, but it is more classified as a bomber because of its size....I doubt someone brings a a20 to 10k and level bombs...maybe dive bomb, but not level bomb...we should have attack hangers...for a20, hurri 2D, boston 3 [somewhat], bf110, IL2, etc etc.

[tedrbr]

Originally posted by Krusty
The only problem with the A-26 is it would be an attacker only. It would take up fighter perks, NOT bomber perks.

Unless you got the glass nose, then it would be a level bomber and formations would be enabled. I can just hear the masses rioting if they don't get their 8-gun solid nose, though.

Look at the A20G. Solid nose = no bombsight = no formation, and I think it's an attacker, not a bomber (even though it comes from the bomber hangars).

No reason why it can't come from a bomber hangar AND cost bomber perks.  Was the B model more of an attacker in the way it was used?  Yes.  It replaced the B-26 more than any other plane though.  A  C model would be a super Ki-67 on speed and ord carried.  Also, I'm thinking in terms of the game's perk economy..... bomber perks need an economy sink other than the Ar-234's.  

You could even model both..... C model with bombsight and glass nose, and a more expensive model with 8-pack in solid nose and 6-pack in wings.  The actual conversion between B and C model could be done in the field in a few hours.  Give them the external wing mount cannons, or internals with option for an additional 2,000 pounds of ord on the wing mounts?  Single flight, or formations?  

Depending on how you modeled it, the A-26 could be a huge bomber perk economy sink.  The question is if a single plane in the hangar can have a sliding perk cost associated with it from how it's outfitted.  Not sure the code can do that.

[tedrbr]

Originally posted by Bronk
Deal but you lose all perks if you lose just 1.

I don't get mulligans in my fighter.

Bronk

But you get to up and fight a dozen times in the amount of time it takes me to run one single high alt, long range bomber mission.  Don't think you are hurting in fun factor.  

[Krusty]

But, say we get the attacker version, and maybe it does use perk points from the bomber pool, it still won't be a formation-enabled, level bomber.

We'd STILL be lacking a perked level bomber (not counting Arado)

[Krusty]

Originally posted by tedrbr
But you get to up and fight a dozen times in the amount of time it takes me to run one single high alt, long range bomber mission.  Don't think you are hurting in fun factor.  

So, you can up a dozen bomber sorties and auger, bail, or get vulched in the time it takes my P47N to get to 15k. The number of sorties one can up while the other is flying isn't even on the radar, it's not even related to the topic.

[tedrbr]

Originally posted by Krusty
But, say we get the attacker version, and maybe it does use perk points from the bomber pool, it still won't be a formation-enabled, level bomber.

We'd STILL be lacking a perked level bomber (not counting Arado)

So, again, offer both B and C versions:

Each has 4K internal bomb load and 2 twin .50 turrets (dorsal and ventral).  Same flight characteristics, same specs, pretty much identical planes.  Both draw perkies from Bomber perk points.

B-version (solid nose): 8 - .50's nose guns.  6 - .50's optional gun pods  or  6 - .50's internal in the wings with optional 2,000 external load of bombs, rockets, (and possibly DT's.... not sure if they had 'em in WWII for A-26, but did by Korea).   No formations enabled.  Best used against GV's and as a strafer.  No F6 bomb sight (or you only see black from solid nose) if that is the case, but I think the pilot *did* have a bomb sight in the B-version of sorts, the N-9 Gun Bomb Sight, same as used in the Mustang.

C-version (glass nose): 2 forward firing .50's, option of 6 - wing mounted gun pods or external ordnance, or DT's (see above).   F6 Bomb sight enabled.  Formations enabled.    Best used as a fast, level, penetration bomber.... like a faster, heavily armed Ki-67 or B-26 formation with more ord carried.


So with one plane, you get two perkable rides, 1 level formation, and 1 attack.


I know I've seen the  argument for perking existing rides, but I'd hate to see existing planes gimped and not get anything in return.   I've looked at other planes from the war that we don't have yet, but nothing really is perk-worthy other than the B-29 (which we won't get), and the He-177 if those special ords (Henschel Hs 293 or Fritz X) could be carried (which is not going to happen) and some of the prototypes that did not see operations.

[Krusty]

I'd pay perks for a Ju-188 or 388, as long as it had the 20mm dorsal gun in the back of the cockpit, and maybe the 20mm in the nose, too!

[Oleg]

Originally posted by Saxman
To be perfectly honest with you, I'd rather face a formation of B-24s or B-17s than one of B-26s.

Agreed. Dont sure why, but i have more problems with B-26s. May be just because it smaller.

BTW, just perk formations. With easy calibration and negligible dispersion heavy bombers becomes too effective for no cost.

[tedrbr]

Originally posted by Krusty
I'd pay perks for a Ju-188 or 388, as long as it had the 20mm dorsal gun in the back of the cockpit, and maybe the 20mm in the nose, too!

hmmmmm....

Ju-188
Role    Bomber;     Crew    5
First Flight    December, 1941
Entered Service    1943

Performance
Maximum speed    499 km/h @ 6,000 m    310 mph @ 19,700 ft
Combat range    2,190 km    1,360 miles
Service ceiling    9,500 m    31,170 ft

Armament
Guns (typical)    1 × MG 151 20 mm cannon, 3 × MG 131 13 mm machine gun
Bombs    3,000 kg    6,600 lb

Just a little more ord than carried by a B-17's 6K, less than B-24's 8K, at a 30mph faster than B17 or B24 at near 20K alt., with less defensive guns available to protect it.   Don't think I'd spend any perks on it.  I don't think I'd fly it.   Better platforms for a 20mm in game already.

---------------------------

JU-388 (3 versions)
    * Ju 388 J Night fighter/bomber destroyer --- primarily a response to reports of B-29's capabilities - 2 prototypes built known.  None operational known.  Ju 388J (proposed) two 20mm cannon and two 30mm forward firing cannon in under fuselage pod.  Two 13mm machine guns in remote control tail barbette.  No ord carried.

    * Ju 388 K high-altitude bomber - about 50 completed, or more often, partially completed, but did not see operations as reported.  Had not seen figures for ord load carried.

    * Ju 388 L photo-reconnaissance.  Highest interception
(44,000 ft) of the war over English Channel of an L model on recon (damned Spits).  About 60 built in total. Only model to see operations in late days of the war.

Max. Speed: 383 mph (616 km/h) at 40,300 ft (12285m) 407 mph (655 km/h) at 29,790 ft (9080m) with water-methanol boost
# Time to 36,090 ft (11000m) 30.0 minutes
# Service ceiling: 44,095 ft (13440m)
# Max range: 2,160 miles (3476 km)


Can't see HT introducing this, as it opens up a whole whine-fest about including many the prototypes from the various air forces into the plane set.  The J is the only one of interest as a bomber destroyer, especially if we actually HAD the B-29,  but never got past prototype stage --- B-29's sent to Pacific by the time engines were built.

Very high speeds at very high altitudes.... which is part of the argument of why we don't get the B-29's, and at least the B-29's saw a lot of operations.  Ju388 did not beyond recon missions.

[Kweassa]

Or better yet, instead of all this gibberish about the buffs...

 ...give us human-controlled 88mm flak batteries, equipped with a reasonable targetting system, so while it may not be a threat to fast maneuvering fighters, it will become the bane of slow and steady flying planes under 15k altitude.

 Whenever the dorky horde mission ups, we can merrily take our 88mm batteries and hide them in the nearby woods. Since bombers have formations of three planes, the 88mms will also have 'slaved' batteries of three. The bombers dare come in under 15k, then we target it and let 'er rip if they come nearby. Low flying buffs? Suicidal tard buffs? Let them come - we'll show them some 88mm love.

[tedrbr]

Oh....88mm gun, mounted on the Sonderanhaenger ( Trailer ) 201, and permanently attached to an appropriate tow vehicle (with it's own pintal MG maybe) would be fun.

Modeling a vehicle with a pivot point would be the hard part for the game, as code goes now, I'm betting --- I could live with them fudging that part.

Option for proximity fuse/altimeter fuse for AA, AP, and HE, would be a fun addition.

Vulnerable to incoming tank fire, not very maneuverable, not able to fire past it's tow vehicle at low angles, but effective to snipe enemy vehicles, bombard towns and bases, and defend sites against low flying bombers (or even high, if the gunner is good ---- or an LTAR).

Yes.  I'd buy that for a dollar!  And, yes, a cheap low price would be justified, I think, to a weapon as capable as the 88mm gun.  

Flak 18 and Flak 36 and Flak 37.
High angle range of 35,100 ft.and a horizontal range of 16,200 yards.
They could fire high explosive (HE), armour piercing (AP) or smoke shells.
Muzzle velocity was 2690 ft. per second with HE and 2620 ft.with AP.
Rate of fire was about 20 rounds per minute --- 1 round every 3 seconds.

Plus it gives the GV's another perk ride.  

Good idea..... belongs in it's own thread.

Artillery... KING of the BATTLEFIELD..... yet unrepresented in AH-II

[Tilt]

Originally posted by Krusty
The only problem with the A-26 is it would be an attacker only. It would take up fighter perks, NOT bomber perks.  

IMO we should have a proper attack classification with attack perks etc........

see sig

[Rino]

Originally posted by tedrbr
No reason why it can't come from a bomber hangar AND cost bomber perks.  Was the B model more of an attacker in the way it was used?  Yes.  It replaced the B-26 more than any other plane though.  A  C model would be a super Ki-67 on speed and ord carried.  Also, I'm thinking in terms of the game's perk economy..... bomber perks need an economy sink other than the Ar-234's.  

You could even model both..... C model with bombsight and glass nose, and a more expensive model with 8-pack in solid nose and 6-pack in wings.  The actual conversion between B and C model could be done in the field in a few hours.  Give them the external wing mount cannons, or internals with option for an additional 2,000 pounds of ord on the wing mounts?  Single flight, or formations?  

Depending on how you modeled it, the A-26 could be a huge bomber perk economy sink.  The question is if a single plane in the hangar can have a sliding perk cost associated with it from how it's outfitted.  Not sure the code can do that.

     I'm just wondering what happens if buff perks continue to accumulate?
Will there be perk inflation?  Suddenly 234s could cost 2,000,000-3,000,000
perks?  I can see new planes just for new plane's sake..a perk "economy
sink" seems very odd to me.