Author Topic: ? for Pyro: B-26 Loadout (Read 488 times)

Sundog · « **on:** December 11, 2000, 09:50:00 AM »

Pyro,
When you (HTC) release the V1.05 AH, will the B-26 be able to carry an external torpedo (Of course negating the use of the internal bombay) as it did historically?
Thanks,
SD

PS-Still looking for the picture of the inside of the P-38 Droop Snoot bombadiers position.

RAM · « **Reply #1 on:** December 11, 2000, 11:34:00 AM »

Honest question-

How many B26s did historically carry external torpedoes?.

juzz · « **Reply #2 on:** December 11, 2000, 08:38:00 PM »

Very few, if any B-26B ever used torps in battle I think. 4 B-26A's did at Midway though. None of them hit anything, and 2 were shot down.

If the B-26 wasn't commonly used as a torpedo carrier, then it probably shouldn't be in AH either. Besides the US will have the TBM.

Ju 88A-4 is a different story though. In RL, the Ju 88A-4/Torp conversions had the divebrakes removed, and the special torpedo racks installed on the wings meant that it couldn't carry any other bombload.

It seems kind of wrong to just slap two torpedoes onto the AH Ju 88A-4. Might be nice to have a seperate Ju 88A-4/Torp with a 20mm cannon up front and extra fuel tanks in the bombbays.

Fury · « **Reply #3 on:** December 12, 2000, 08:30:00 AM »

Ram, I think that's a good question too.

However, I also believe that precedence has already been set at AH in other areas about "historically"; i.e. Ostwind and how many were actually produced. Torps on the 26 might not be much different than that.

Which bomber carried skip bombs like WB modeled? That would be neat to see.

Fury

juzz · « **Reply #4 on:** December 12, 2000, 08:37:00 AM »

There's no such thing as a "skip bomb" per se - it's just another method of bombing.

I think you could even skip bomb on dry land too.

flakbait · « **Reply #5 on:** December 12, 2000, 09:22:00 AM »

Skip-bombing was done by fitting delay fuzes to normal bombs. You can skip the bomb off any solid surface, even sand. Just make sure the ground crew sets the fuze correctly, or your plane will have a new window through the floor.

-----------------------
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School
"For yay did the sky darken, and split open and spew forth fire, and
through the smoke rode the Four Wurgers of the Apocalypse.
And on their canopies was tattooed the number of the Beast, and the
number was 190." Jedi, Verse Five, Capter Two, The Book of Dweeb

Karnak · « **Reply #6 on:** December 12, 2000, 09:54:00 AM »

The reason the Lanc's bomb bay is so long was because RAF specifications required their heavy bombers to be torpedo capable.

I don't think it ever actually carried torps though.

Sisu
-Karnak

RAM · « **Reply #7 on:** December 12, 2000, 10:25:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fury:
Ram, I think that's a good question too.

However, I also believe that precedence has already been set at AH in other areas about "historically"; i.e. Ostwind and how many were actually produced. Torps on the 26 might not be much different than that.

Which bomber carried skip bombs like WB modeled? That would be neat to see.

Fury

Fury I ask it because I want the chance of getting rid of the cowl mounted MGs in Fw190, so saving more than 300-400lbs of dead weight (ammo+MG+mounts) that serve for no other purpose than to handicap the 190's maneouverability.

First time we asked for that chance ,we were denied it because there were "few" 190As without MGs (although is well known that many buff-hunter A5 and A8s had no cowl MGs).

I dont intend to hijack this thread, I am only explaining the reason of my deep interest in the numbers thing.

If only 4 B26s carried torpedoes in all the WW2...sorry but I cant vote yes to it in AH. Too few. The option was there but was VERY rarely used in combat.

BTW I agree on getting rid of the ostie, or at least perking it. Even after the ammo damage fix the ostie will be an anachronism, and that 37mm is a terror.

sorry the offtopic message.

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 12-12-2000).]

Karnak · « **Reply #8 on:** December 12, 2000, 12:53:00 PM »

RAM,
I don't think you mean "anachronism". I think you might mean "anomaly".

Anachronism means something like obsolete, out of date, ancient or old fashioned.

Anomaly means out of place, doesn't fit within the system, very different, etc.

Sisu
-Karnak

Replicant · « **Reply #9 on:** December 12, 2000, 02:08:00 PM »

Didn't the B26A (not B version!) have an extra bomb bay so they could have internal torpedoes?

Regards

Nexx

RAM · « **Reply #10 on:** December 12, 2000, 02:20:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak:
RAM,
I don't think you mean "anachronism". I think you might mean "anomaly".

No, I mean anachronism. An F86 in 1944 would be as much an anachronism as a Fokker Dr1 in 1944. Anachronism means that it is out of its proper historical time.

Ostwinds were very late war vehicles, and only a few were built. that was what I wanted to mean

juzz · « **Reply #11 on:** December 12, 2000, 02:53:00 PM »

Hey, how many Fw 190F-8 were used for torpedo carrying? Be nice if it had torpedoes, if it ever gets here.

Staga · « **Reply #12 on:** December 12, 2000, 03:22:00 PM »

Is there any pics about FW-190&Torpedos ?

Westy · « **Reply #13 on:** December 12, 2000, 03:27:00 PM »

Yes. I've seen one. It was a test bed. The FW-190 that was able to carry a torp was not an actual production aircraft nor regular filed mod.

-Westy

Sundog · « **Reply #14 on:** December 14, 2000, 12:17:00 AM »

BTW, I agree with you guys, if only a few carried them don't add it. I was just looking at one of my books and it had the pic of the B-26 with the Torpedo mounted below, so I thought I would ask. Besides, as stated earlier, we are getting the Avenger. However, for a long range land based torpedo aircraft, what about the S.M.79 II Sparviero? That would be cool to see in AH.
SD