Author Topic: So how many B-25 variants are we going to have? (Read 2469 times)

tedrbr · « **Reply #15 on:** July 27, 2007, 08:26:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Guppy35
The Strafer was a 5th Air Force Mod. Any B25C/Ds that came to them went through that process. In that regard it's not a field mod in that an entire air force was modifying the 25s before they got to the field.

5th AF requirements for example had their B24s coming without Ball turrets and they had tunnel guns installed instead as the conditions they operated in tended to make the ball turrets useless.

Thanks. That was a better response to that question than I thought I'd get in the forums.

So, the new addition will be a C/D with options on the 5th AF "Strafer" version and on the C/D versions that were factory converted to the G version.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #16 on:** July 27, 2007, 09:49:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by tedrbr
Thanks. That was a better response to that question than I thought I'd get in the forums.

So, the new addition will be a C/D with options on the 5th AF "Strafer" version and on the C/D versions that were factory converted to the G version.

That would be the best guess, unless they decided to do the H which leaves open the option to do a J as the H would have the later fuselage with forward turret and tail postion etc.

Spikes · « **Reply #17 on:** July 27, 2007, 10:05:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wotan

**Polishes up 190A8**

(Only German metal I fly, other then 234)

DaddyAck · « **Reply #18 on:** July 28, 2007, 03:22:11 AM »

I am wondering why they are not making the 25 as the H and J instead. It seems as though in its current state (suspected to be a D and G) it will fair better in the early, mid, and FSO enviroments especially if the retractable belly turret is not included. Though I will be using it.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #19 on:** July 28, 2007, 11:43:55 AM »

Understand that the C/Ds were fighting well into 44 and the Js were 44-45.

It makes the most sense to start with the C/D for any number of reasons, scenarios, snapshots and AvA not withstanding

And of course Toad's Dad flew a D strafer in 44.

DaddyAck · « **Reply #20 on:** July 28, 2007, 02:36:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Guppy35
Understand that the C/Ds were fighting well into 44 and the Js were 44-45.

It makes the most sense to start with the C/D for any number of reasons, scenarios, snapshots and AvA not withstanding

And of course Toad's Dad flew a D strafer in 44.

I understand this, but the reason people voted down the he-111 was because they deemed it defenceless and slow, if they do not model the retractable turret this is just a sheep for the slaughter. If it atleast does not hace the turret on the D, I will be hunting these in my 109 for sure.

tedrbr · « **Reply #21 on:** July 28, 2007, 04:00:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DaddyAck
I understand this, but the reason people voted down the he-111 was because they deemed it defenceless and slow, if they do not model the retractable turret this is just a sheep for the slaughter. If it at least does not have the turret on the D, I will be hunting these in my 109 for sure.

You going to get yourself in trouble like I do you keep posting these things DaddyAck.
And slow? At least it will be faster than the Goon, Kate, and Val as well as the Stuka, SBD, TBM, and IL-2 (at least at altitude, it may be slower than these 4 on the deck).
No worries!

Guppy35 · « **Reply #22 on:** July 28, 2007, 06:42:54 PM »

Again the debate goes on.

Is this for purely MA use or are there other motivations for it's inclusion.

I know Ted is a 26 guy. For a late war, MA bird it would make great sense. But I don't think that's all that goes into it.

If that was the case, then we'd have 51Ds, 190D9s, 109Ks LA7s Spit 16s etc and nothing prior to late 44 production.

Would the He111 make sense? Sure for the scenario use and potential early war stuff and AvA. Would it get used in the MA? Doubt it.

The more I think about it, the more I believe the cannon bird will be an H if only for the MA use option.

With tail guns, waist guns top turret, 8 forward firing 50s and the 75mm it would be a potent bird that can't get clobbered as easy.

But I also bet that guys will take strafers up too and those with a history bent will take the glass nose one at times.

DaddyAck · « **Reply #23 on:** July 29, 2007, 01:22:30 AM »

According to the screenies its looking like the 25D and G, they if it is modeled will have a dorsal turret and a retractable ventral turret (and a .30 in a flex mount in the nose for the D). I stand by my conviction that these birds will be under gunned and almost never taken to altitude, hence the easy prey comment. As far as the comment "If that was the case, then we'd have 51Ds, 190D9s, 109Ks LA7s Spit 16s etc" look around the LWA, that is most of what is seen (you forgot N1Ks) there are a few whoom fly older mounts, but the ratio is dis-proportionate. Finally unless they change from whats in the screen shots we will not have the H, it is looking like the D and G which is fine for the EWA and MWA as well as FSO and senarios.

(about my He-111 comment, I was not trying to debate anything. I was stating my opinion that there would be no difference in including the 111 over the 25 with the versions it appears we will be getting.)

Saxman · « **Reply #24 on:** July 29, 2007, 02:04:50 AM »

Well, Ack, at least it's all they've shown so FAR. IIRC, they didn't announce the F4U-1A being added when the Corsairs were updated until the actual date-of-release changes were posted on the downloads page.

While there ARE going to be modeling differences between the C/D/G and J, it strikes me that they're not going to be so significant that it would drastically affect their ability to include the later Mitch (I think I remember either Skuzzy or Waffle mentioning that they really wanted to get in the C/D, G ***AND*** J when it was announced the B-25 won the vote-off). While nothing really to this extent, I've done enough 3D modeling in the past to know that moving the turret may be a simpler matter than most people realize.

DaddyAck · « **Reply #25 on:** July 29, 2007, 02:36:21 AM »

Oh roger, I realize that these were just works in progress teaser type things. I just will have to wait and see how it all works out as to which versions we actually get. (and if they do give teh para-frags with the H)

tedrbr · « **Reply #26 on:** July 29, 2007, 01:43:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Saxman
While there ARE going to be modeling differences between the C/D/G and J, it strikes me that they're not going to be so significant that it would drastically affect their ability to include the later Mitch (I think I remember either Skuzzy or Waffle mentioning that they really wanted to get in the C/D, G ***AND*** J when it was announced the B-25 won the vote-off).

It was Pyro I thought. But, one pic shows what is aparently a B-25C/D "Strafer" as the 5th AF flew them, so why develop the "Strafer" if you were also adding the J?

No I think you had it right in the other thread: One B-25C/D with option load out for Strafer and one B-25G (C/D conversion to G).
The first probably will allow drones, the second probably won't. The painted over nose section of the strafer may negate use of the norden in the C/D, the G probably won't be equipped with one, or solid nose prevents it's use. All built on the C/D airframe and FM.

Saxman · « **Reply #27 on:** July 29, 2007, 08:43:59 PM »

Well...

B-25C/D/G would be more of a midwar bird. Certainly she'll be more competitive there.

The B-25J strafer has an additional four forward .50cal in the nose so brings more fixed forward firepower, not to mention being able to put the dorsal turret into it as it's now located much further forward. She'll also be more survivable with the addition of the tail and waist gunner positions in both the bomber and strafer variants.

Also factor in the increased ordinance loadout with the external racks, (noted in one of the threads in another forum) and I can see where the B-25J would be worthwhile.

tedrbr · « **Reply #28 on:** July 29, 2007, 10:21:36 PM »

I can see where doing the J could be worthwhile, but if they were working on the B-25J, then why bother with the B-25C/D done up in the strafer version for the 5th AF?

I'm surprised there are 3 versions of the B-25, considering how some of the past releases have comes over the past 2 years. I can't really see a fourth. The C/D strafer and early G models were at least all built on the same C/D version. The J had a number of differences compared to them.

Saxman · « **Reply #29 on:** July 29, 2007, 11:51:37 PM »

I'd say the reasoning would be one for MW, while the other would be more viable in LW (C/D/G would get eaten alive by the late-war uber rides, but the J would at least stand a fighting chance with the beefed up defensive armament.

My thinking is it would be more or less the same reason we have about a dozen different Spit and 109 variants. I'm sure the Spit and 109 regulars would be pretty frustrated contending with La-7s and F4U-4s with only the Mk.I and Emil in the stable, even though the game could have probably survived without the other models.

Besides, how much modification to the model was REALLY needed to turn the glass-nosed C/D into a strafer anyway?