B25 level bomber with atleast a tail gun.

[Krusty]

Tripod doesn't do hotlinking

[Ack-Ack]

Want to take a stab at these?

Sure.

B-25J Glide-Torpedo Bomber

    One of the problems with conventional torpedo bombing from aircraft is the need to approach the target in a low straight-and-level pass before releasing the torpedo, exposing the attacking aircraft to antiaircraft fire.   One of the possible solutions to this problem was to equip the torpedo with a set of wings and a tail, release it from the aircraft at a safe distance, and let it glide by itself to the vicinity of the target.

    Later production blocks of the B-25J had been provided at the factory with the capability of carrying glide bombs and glide torpedoes underneath their fuselages.   Several missions were flown by B-25Js in the closing days of the war with glide torpedoes.   The glide torpedo consisted of a standard Navy torpedo attached to a jettisonable airframe that was fitted with wings and a tail.   This assembly was to be carried underneath the fuselage of the B-25J and would be released from the aircraft at a safe height and distance, from which it would glide to the vicinity of the target.   A set of explosive bolts would separate the torpedo from its airframe when it was at the correct altitude above the water for normal launch.

    The First Provisional Glide Torpedo Squadron was formed to test the concept in actual combat.   This squadron was assigned to the 41st Bombardment Group.   This unit was issued with several B-25J-1s that were specially modified to carry the glide torpedo underneath the fuselage.   The glide torpedo was taken into action for the first time on July 31, 1945 in an attack on shipping targets in Sasebo Harbor, Kyushu.   Another attack was made on August 1 against targets in Nagasaki harbor.

    Since the torpedoes had been released from distances as far as twelve miles from the target, with breakaway being made immediately thereafter, it was difficult to determine if any significant damage was actually done in these attacks.   It was concluded that it would be necessary in the future for reconnaissance aircraft to accompany the B-25s on these missions to determine if they were effective.   However, the war in the Pacific ended before any further glide torpedo missions could be carried out.

Source: Life and Times of the 341st Bomb Group

ack-ack

[Saxman]

Tripod doesn't do hotlinking

I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

[lyric1]

Sure.

Source: Life and Times of the 341st Bomb Group

ack-ack

Only 1 problem those are C models I posted?

[whiteman]

Yes for the J, i figured that would be the strafer we would get instead of the H.

[Guppy35]

Think about it for just a sec.  Outside of doing every possible model of every plane, there has to be some compromise in what HTC models.

Doing the B25 what was the best bang for the buck in regards to both MA and Scenario use.

They gave us a B25C glass nose version.  Think about what that covers.  Early PTO,CBI, North Africa, MTO, Aleutians and the ETO with the RAF.  No tail guns.

They then give us a modified B25C1 strafer.  That covers the 5th AF birds that put the B25 to such good use.  Keep in mind they flew the C/D strafers well into 44.

And they gave us a B25H which covers the PTO, CBI and is a pretty good stand in for the earlier B25G if you really want a cannon 25 in an MTO scenario.

Then think MA.  Which B25 version offers the most usability.  The B25H.  It's got all the firepower you could ask for and it has tail guns.  It carries bombs, lets you fight the tanks, and has plenty of MGs to shoot.

If you want to give someone a face full of 50s, take a 25C strafer.

I guess I must seem like an HTC apologist, but I'm of the opinion they did a pretty decent job on deciding which 25s added the most variety and punch for both Scenario/FSO/Snapshot use and the MA.

[lyric1]

Think about it for just a sec.  Outside of doing every possible model of every plane, there has to be some compromise in what HTC models.

Doing the B25 what was the best bang for the buck in regards to both MA and Scenario use.

They gave us a B25C glass nose version.  Think about what that covers.  Early PTO,CBI, North Africa, MTO, Aleutians and the ETO with the RAF.  No tail guns.

They then give us a modified B25C1 strafer.  That covers the 5th AF birds that put the B25 to such good use.  Keep in mind they flew the C/D strafers well into 44.

And they gave us a B25H which covers the PTO, CBI and is a pretty good stand in for the earlier B25G if you really want a cannon 25 in an MTO scenario.

Then think MA.  Which B25 version offers the most usability.  The B25H.  It's got all the firepower you could ask for and it has tail guns.  It carries bombs, lets you fight the tanks, and has plenty of MGs to shoot.

If you want to give someone a face full of 50s, take a 25C strafer.

I guess I must seem like an HTC apologist, but I'm of the opinion they did a pretty decent job on deciding which 25s added the most variety and punch for both Scenario/FSO/Snapshot use and the MA.

I agree how ever.

WE WANT MORE.

[Krusty]

Think about it for just a sec.  Outside of doing every possible model of every plane, there has to be some compromise in what HTC models.

Doing the B25 what was the best bang for the buck in regards to both MA and Scenario use.

They gave us a B25C glass nose version.  Think about what that covers.  Early PTO,CBI, North Africa, MTO, Aleutians and the ETO with the RAF.  No tail guns.

They then give us a modified B25C1 strafer.  That covers the 5th AF birds that put the B25 to such good use.  Keep in mind they flew the C/D strafers well into 44.

And they gave us a B25H which covers the PTO, CBI and is a pretty good stand in for the earlier B25G if you really want a cannon 25 in an MTO scenario.

Then think MA.  Which B25 version offers the most usability.  The B25H.  It's got all the firepower you could ask for and it has tail guns.  It carries bombs, lets you fight the tanks, and has plenty of MGs to shoot.

If you want to give someone a face full of 50s, take a 25C strafer.

I guess I must seem like an HTC apologist, but I'm of the opinion they did a pretty decent job on deciding which 25s added the most variety and punch for both Scenario/FSO/Snapshot use and the MA.

Think of it this way... there's significant differences between the 2 we have and the 1 we want, that it's like having a Bf109F-4, a Bf109G-2, and then still wanting a Bf109G-6.

In the PTO they may have used the C models into 1944, but they also had many areas where these B-25s could fly around unmolested and pick off shipping and ground targets.

Even early Stukas were effective when they had complete air superiority.

The B-25J simply gives us a model more suited to use in an environment without total friendly air superiority. It was also the pre-eminent version, the most iconic (as the G is the the B17, the J is to the B25).

[Guppy35]

Think of it this way... there's significant differences between the 2 we have and the 1 we want, that it's like having a Bf109F-4, a Bf109G-2, and then still wanting a Bf109G-6.

In the PTO they may have used the C models into 1944, but they also had many areas where these B-25s could fly around unmolested and pick off shipping and ground targets.

Even early Stukas were effective when they had complete air superiority.

The B-25J simply gives us a model more suited to use in an environment without total friendly air superiority. It was also the pre-eminent version, the most iconic (as the G is the the B17, the J is to the B25).

But it was not the most iconic, pre-eminent version.  It was there at the end.  The other guys in the early models did the fighting when it was the toughest.  The 25J did operate in the environment where we had airsupriority.  The others did not

The most Iconic version are the early C/D versions that flew into combat without all the bells and whistles. whether it be in the PTO, CBI, MTO or ETO with the RAF,

[Krusty]

The same can be said for the B-17G an the B-24J, and the Bf-109G, and the 190A8 or D9... Their predecessors did a lot of the heavy lifting, but these are the more iconical versions.

Plus, we have a C with a strafer option, so that's covered. it's not exactly like we ask to trade one for the other. I've done a number of B-25 raids and sorties in the MAs, even knocked out a couple 262s in a single day (my squaddie, flying formation next to me, got two Me262s in a ROW in one!) so they're not totally meat-on-the-table, but it would be nice.

I feel the same way about the P-40M/N being added alongside the P-40E... Not much difference really, just a few different weapons loadouts.

[Baumer]

I think, of the planes we currently have in Aces High, the B-25's will benefit the most with the expanded ordnance system.

With PBJ-1C/D's carrying rockets, wing bombs, and extra guns, I'm sure that was way over the capability of the old ord system.

And don't forget some of the USMC squadrons flew the D's all the way to the end of the war.

[Krusty]

I never flew online in WB (just HTH) as I was doing non-WW2 stuff back then, but I recall it used to have a number of weapons we don't have here in AH. Would make it more interesting with rkts under wings, for sure! Would make a B-25H the ultimate strat porker!

[Ack-Ack]

Only 1 problem those are C models I posted?

Sure, field combat tests and not used operationally outside of those units doing the field testing.  By 1943, the USAAF moved away from the idea of using bombers like the B-25 and B-26 to drop torpedoes and no longer trained the crews in the practice, though the USN and Marines continued training their Mitchell units in using torpedoes.  It wasn't until the advent of the glide torpedo did the USAAF revisit the idea and created the First Provisional Glide Torpedo Squadron to test out it in combat conditions (the screenshots of the J you posted) and only two sorties were flown.  With the glide torpedoes, the bombers were able to drop the torpedoes at a safer range than with normal torpedoes.

Basically, torpedoes were not used under normal operational conditions with the B-25 even though they continued to be produced with the ability to drop torpedoes.  The USAAF felt that using bombers like the B-25 to drop torpedoes was too dangerous for the crew because they had to get in close and slow without any significant results as shown by the use of B-26s to drop torpedoes during the Battle of Midway.


ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

I'd LOVE to have a J model. Both for the pure awesomeness of the 12x.50cal (I'd turn my tracers back ON when I used her just for the effect ) and for this skin:

(Image removed from quote.)

LOL one of the crew's name is Buttram.  sorry, but I had to chuckle at that.


ack-ack

[lyric1]

Sure, field combat tests and not used operationally outside of those units doing the field testing.  By 1943, the USAAF moved away from the idea of using bombers like the B-25 and B-26 to drop torpedoes and no longer trained the crews in the practice, though the USN and Marines continued training their Mitchell units in using torpedoes.  It wasn't until the advent of the glide torpedo did the USAAF revisit the idea and created the First Provisional Glide Torpedo Squadron to test out it in combat conditions (the screenshots of the J you posted) and only two sorties were flown.  With the glide torpedoes, the bombers were able to drop the torpedoes at a safer range than with normal torpedoes.

Basically, torpedoes were not used under normal operational conditions with the B-25 even though they continued to be produced with the ability to drop torpedoes.  The USAAF felt that using bombers like the B-25 to drop torpedoes was too dangerous for the crew because they had to get in close and slow without any significant results as shown by the use of B-26s to drop torpedoes during the Battle of Midway.


ack-ack

Very good can't get one by you.