Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...

[moot]

Yep that's what I was saying.  Doesnt seem nearly as long or complex a learning curve as learning to dogfight.

[Guppy35]

The A-26 would be a nice addition to the game.  And if perked, you wouldnt see too many of them.  Especially, since the role they are designed primarily for, will but them in low altitude combat, and get them swarmed by every fighter that sees one. 

the A-26 packs more forward firepower than anything we have in game now (14 X .50 cals if you include the 8 in optional underwing pods + the 6 in the nose), and carries more ordinance than either the A-20 or the B-25 (either the H or the C in strafer configuration), its two closest comparisons we have in game.  And yes, its faster too.

Its introduction into service in 1943 could also place it into MW service, filling a gap that currently exists.

If the "bomber that shall not be named lest little kitties and puppies be put to death" were to be put into the game, it would most certainly go into the LW arena, where we already have a perked bomber.  That, and the 20,000 lb bombload per aircraft is reason enough to me to leave it out.

Oh... and to everyone that has pointed out to me that the Lancaster is perked in EW, yes... I admit I missed that.  My bad, I can count on one hand the number of times I have flown EW.  I should have looked at the EW aircraft before I posted.  But it still leaves us with a gap that needs to be filled.

Where was the A26 introduced to service in 1943.  It saw limited use with the 9th AF in the ETO from about October 44 on.  It saw very limited use in the PTO later then that.

It just wasn't a factor of any consequence.  In terms of adding it to AH, it should be way down the list behind any number of birds that were of consequence to WW2 air combat, but not as uber.

[AKP]

Where was the A26 introduced to service in 1943.  It saw limited use with the 9th AF in the ETO from about October 44 on.  It saw very limited use in the PTO later then that.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/ , http://en.wikipedia.org/ ,  lists it as entering service in August 1943... while http://www.warbirdalley.com/ , google, and http://milhist.blogspot.com/ list it as not entering service until 1944. 

So I guess more research from verifiable sources is needed on that point.

[Lusche]

So I guess more research from verifiable sources is needed on that point.

Not if you have Dan and his infinite library 

http://en.wikipedia.org/ ,  lists it as entering service in August 1943...

This is what Wikipedia actually says:

"The Douglas company began delivering the production model A-26B in August 1943 with the new bomber first seeing action with the Fifth Air Force in the Southwest Pacific theater on 23 June 1944, when they bombed Japanese-held islands near Manokwari"

[Motherland]

Military Factory is terrible.

[Vudak]

Did Air Warrior really have it THAT flat-out wrong?  I don't recall it ever being unbalancing there, but then again I'd imagine HTC would do a better job with the flight model, etc., and it would turn out to be very unbalancing here.

I just can't see it being any more annoying than the average D9 or Mustang from an A2A perspective, except when flown by a select few who bother to learn this game.  From a A2G perspective, I can't see it being any more annoying than the average suicide bomber in on whatever hanger doesn't really need to go down.

[moot]

Just 8x500+4x500 lbs on a platform even brawnier than the A20 is enough for perks, IMO.  If on top of that it makes for an A2A tool that's like an A20 on steroids, it removes pretty much any doubt that it should be perked.

[Vudak]

Just 8x500+4x500 lbs on a platform even brawnier than the A20 is enough for perks, IMO.  If on top of that it makes for an A2A tool that's like an A20 on steroids, it removes pretty much any doubt that it should be perked.

I'm just curious because of it being available in Air Warrior.  Granted, I was basically a little kid when that game was out (and never even thought of the concept of a forum message board), but I don't remember any complaints about the A26 being a "dweeb ride" or the like.

I just wonder why that was?  Was it poorly modeled?  Were people just not flying it to its potential/thinking of it as a fighter?  What was the issue?

It's just that then it didn't strike me as a big deal, and now if it's not perked it will be a huge deal. 

Just curious is all.

[AKP]

Ok... so lets go with 1944.  I assume that is LW? 

[Rich46yo]

In the ATA game it wouldnt have much impact. Nobody is going to dogfight in the thing, or very few. As far as guns go it would be a little less capable then the B-26. The A-26 has two defensive guns, both dbl 0.50s, one ventral, one dorsal. With its speed however it would be more defendable I would think, as it would make it difficult for enemy fighters to set up on you properly.

No I think all things being equal it would deserve a light perk. Which doesnt mean much anyways cause we all have so many bomber perks to begin with.

[moot]

Vudak I don't know either.. I'm just going from the specs, Pyro's comment, and comparing those to the closest analog we have, the A20.

[999000]

I'm not sure where the general notion that the B29 is wrong came from? ...close to 4000 were produced...There might not be anything that could compare it to in aces high but there is nothing to compare a the ME  262 in aces high either.  Only 1500 ME262 were produced of which only about 20% were ever even used.
but give me the PBY first!
999000 <S>

[Ciaphas]

we need new rides in the bomber hangar.

Agreed!   

Give us something, anything will do just as long as a few people have fun flying. In the end that's what it's all about anyway. right?

[GreenEagle43]

ok how about the tupolev sb2 Russian bomber

[Karnak]

ok how about the tupolev sb2 Russian bomber

Not even remotely a perk bomber.

Maybe the Tu-2.