c 205 bomb option

[lulu]

C 205 was able to drop one bomb (329 kg).   -  http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macchi_M.C.205

Can we have a c 205 with an option to drop one bomb?


 

[Debrody]

Maybe when it gets its well-deserved update.
My book does not mention any jabo missions tho, but its only about the mid-'44 to mid-'45 period.

[TheAssi]

They gave the wonderful Emil a bombbizzidy.

If my spaghetti shooter gets one too, I might have an acegasm.

[Seadog36]

+1 great idea

[Selino631]

I've been asking for this and the G.55 and a Italian bomber for ages.


when will the come to there senses and do it!!??





+1

[Volron]

If HTC has the information, or if they get the information by the time they get around to updating the C.20x's, then we might see it.

A question on the E-4 though, what difference is there between the E-4 and the E-4/B (aside from an option to carry a bomb)?  Wiki tells me (I know) that they use the same engine.

If there really is no difference aside from the ability to carry a bomb, I wish for the designation of the E-4 be changed to the Bf-109 E-4/B when you see your name in the lights.   Would also like the designation of the B-29 to be changed to the B-29A while I'm at it. 

Back to topic:

Our C.205 is the C.205V?  Were any of the C.205N's made in sufficient numbers to warrant their inclusion?  I am thinking no based off the limited information I get from wiki but some of you do have books on this plane and could better answer the question.

[potsNpans]

-1, recon fitted with extra fuel tanks. Better to give the rare 202 a DT.

[Krusty]

DTs were apparently rare... While the wing could mount a bomb it basically never did. A number of Italian planes could carry bombs, but few ever did.

They were home defense. Not much to bomb. When they had to, they used level bombers. At most, fighters were used to strafe troops/targets with MGs.

So C.2s would have no bomb. The DTs would be nice. They have a bit more of a valid argument, but again very VERY rare to see. Not at all representative. Most recon flights were over nearby territory, so they never had to run out of gas. Most missions were short range. It was never an issue.

[Tank-Ace]

P-51's very rarely mounted both bombs and rockets, but we can do that in here.

I see almost no difference between giving a rare load-out combination and a rare loadout. I mean either way you look at it, its still doing something that was rarely done in real life.

[Butcher]

P-51's very rarely mounted both bombs and rockets, but we can do that in here.

I see almost no difference between giving a rare load-out combination and a rare loadout. I mean either way you look at it, its still doing something that was rarely done in real life.

Uhh the P-51's ordnance loadout was NOT rare, or a field modification kit - which makes it legit to be added in game.

A C202/205 was capable of carrying ordnance on its wings along with a drop tanks, however the drop tanks were used quite more then the bomb option which I have not found a single photo of any C202s/205s carrying ordnance.

I have 6 photos of a C.205 and G.55 carrying drop tanks, mostly recon versions since they were defending and didn't need drop tanks, my argument is the drop tanks were readily available they simply were not needed which
says they were not field modification kits, however just because they were not used daily doesn't mean it didn't exist or was used.

The Bombs I would certainly say No too, but the Drop Tanks for example were used in North Africa.

[Karnak]

Bombs or rockets were not rare on P-51Ds, bombs and rockets was rare, at least going by photographic evidence.

[Butcher]

Bombs or rockets were not rare on P-51Ds, bombs and rockets was rare, at least going by photographic evidence.

Yeah one reason it wasn't widely seen because the war was changing in favor of the mustang being strictly a long range escort fighter, while the P-38 and P-47 evolved from escorting to ground attack missions well better suited then the Mustang was.

The P-51D still could of evolved, however why change it from its role when the P-47 was more suited for it? it made sense, the only other fighter to be nearly as versatile would of been the Fw-190 as it evolved quite well given the task it had to do.

[oakranger]

A question on the E-4 though, what difference is there between the E-4 and the E-4/B (aside from an option to carry a bomb)?  Wiki tells me (I know) that they use the same engine.

If there really is no difference aside from the ability to carry a bomb, I wish for the designation of the E-4 be changed to the Bf-109 E-4/B when you see your name in the lights.   Would also like the designation of the B-29 to be changed to the B-29A while I'm at it. 

Bf109E-4 - Fighter
Bf109E-4/B - Fighter-bomber with ETC bomb racks

[Tank-Ace]

The P-51D still could of evolved, however why change it from its role when the P-47 was more suited for it? it made sense, the only other fighter to be nearly as versatile would of been the Fw-190 as it evolved quite well given the task it had to do.

And here is where you just shot your entire argument in the foot. You're using a might have been argument for the P-51, and an XYZ in real life argument for the C.205.


Absolutely ZERO difference between the two plane's situations. Now pick ONE type of argument, and we'll go from there

[Selino631]

i would be happy if they left the C.205 as is.

but they should really add the Fiat G.55, it is basicly a high powered C.205 and it can carry more ordnance (bombs and torpedoes)