1000lbs, or equivalent, of ordnance question

[Babalonian]

I have been, slowly, working on some performance stats for fighters (I made an exception and included the A-20G) that can be used as fighter-bombers.  For my purposes I originally put the low end at needing 2000lbs or more but when the P-40N was added with three 500lbers and some people said they were going to make it their primary fighter-bomber I lowered the limit to 1000lbs.  Last night I was going over the aircraft list and checking to make sure my spreadsheet had all of the qualifying aircraft when I noticed the FM2 could carry two 100lb bombs and six 5" HVAR rockets.  I tentatively added it to the spreadsheet and did a few flight tests on it, but I am not sure that quite reaches 1000lbs of destruction.  Does anybody know?


My list as it stands now:

A-20G
A-26
Beaufighter
Bf110C-4b*
Bf110G-2*
F4U-1
F4U-1A
F4U-1C
F4U-1D
F4U-4
F6F-5
FM2*
Fw190A-5
Fw190A-8
Fw190F-8
Hurricane Mk IIc*
Ki-43-II
Ki-45
Ki-61-I-Tei*
Ki-84-I-Ko
Ki-102
Me410
Mosquito Mk VI
N1K2-J
P-38G
P-38J
P-38L
P-40N
P-47D-25
P-47D-40
P-47N
P-51B
P-51D
P-61B
Pe-2
Spitfire Mk XVI
Tempest Mk V
Tu-2
Typhoon Mk Ib

Italics = Placeholder for aircraft not yet added to Aces High
* = Aircraft not yet upgraded to 2.0 standards

190D-9, in AH she carrys up to a single 500kger (~1,100 lbs, I think).

Your addition of the A-20 is confusing.... technicaly in the same category as Fighter/Bomber would be many carrier aircraft (TBMs, SBDs, etc.) and even the Stuka.  The A-20 is just very late war in comparison to those others, but at the onset of WWII the early-model stuka, with its horn and twin forward-BBs (and well over 1000lb ordnance options), was considered the deadliest ground-support aircraft in the world.

[Karnak]

190D-9, in AH she carrys up to a single 500kger (~1,100 lbs, I think).

I don't recall so, no.  I recall it being in the same group as the Bf109K-4, P-47M, Spitfire Mk XIV and Ta152H-1, giving up the ordnance carrying abilities of its predecessors.  I will check again though.

[Babalonian]

I don't recall so, no.  I recall it being in the same group as the Bf109K-4, P-47M, Spitfire Mk XIV and Ta152H-1, giving up the ordnance carrying abilities of its predecessors.  I will check again though.

She does.  But, find me a single Luft AAR, picture or document prooving it was actually used in actual combat as it is in AH.  Just because their external accesory (drop tank) racks could carry 250kg and 500kg bombs, I have found no such documented use as such.  But, look in the AH hangar, she is capable of bomb trucking.

Given what's missing from the ordnance options on the F-8 though and the infamous neverending AH-A8 bickering, and one is best to assume that the 190 lineup just needs an eventual ordnance/loadout rework/love session from the powers that be.


Anywho, see my edit above to my first post, this list has some potential for getting very complicated.

[Tank-Ace]

As I said, I don't feel it should be based on just the ordnance capacity and AH- plane designation.

[Karnak]

I included the A-20G simply because people insist on using it as a fighter as well.  Basically the list is supposed to be of multi-role aircraft that can do both air-to-air and air-to-mud with some expectation of success.

As I said, I don't feel it should be based on just the ordnance capacity and AH- plane designation.

The AH plane designation has literally no effect on my selection.  My choices, other than humoring the A-20G fans, has been simply what I consider at least minimally effective multi-role fighters.  If you have any constructive or specific feedback, including reasoning, I am interested in reading it.

EDIT:
I have removed the placeholder Pe-2 from my list.  Its guns are not nearly adequate to have a reasonable expectation of success as a fighter given its likely maneuverability.

If I can get the PDE numbers for all of the weapons I will add a note as to the PDE of each loadout, not including rifle caliber machine guns.

[morfiend]

nominal / actual damage value

100lb / 156
250lb / 313
500lb / 563
1000lb / 1000
2000lb / 1719
4000lb / 3125

  A question Lusche,so a 500lb bomb does 562 damage but does the 250 kg do the same?  Also what about the 500kg does it do 1000 also?

  TIA



   

[FLS]

I don't recall so, no.  I recall it being in the same group as the Bf109K-4, P-47M, Spitfire Mk XIV and Ta152H-1, giving up the ordnance carrying abilities of its predecessors.  I will check again though.

Karnak II/JG26 flew 190D's and carried either 250 or 500 kg bombs.

[Karnak]

Karnak II/JG26 flew 190D's and carried either 250 or 500 kg bombs.

Fw190D-9 added to the list.

Placeholder for Ju88G added to the list.

[Widewing]

No, I'm not arguing in a circle, you just derailed the argument.


We don't have infintry and defensive works where small bombs are about as effective as large ones due to the defensive works protecting the infintry.

Because our ACES HIGH bombs are all impact-fuzed (this is evidenced by the fact that they explode at ground level, not above it), air-bursts limiting the effectivness of defensive works is irrelevent, as we wouldn't have that advantage even if we had infintry and trenches for them to huddle in. This was in response to your post about napoleon and his guns, where you entirely missed the point Save was trying to make.


Now, because we don't have air bursts, a dogleg in a trench would be quite effective in protecting troops on one side even if there was a direct hit on the other. Therefore, multiple 50kg bombs dropped in several strenches of trench work would be more effective than a single 250lb bomb dropped in a single section of a trench.



And to tie it all into my origional comment: Because we lack trenches and infintry, where lighter weapons are still quite effective, I wouldn't put planes like the FM2 or the 109 on the list of ground attack planes, regardless of their full ordnance capacity, because that ordnance is distributed into less usefull weapons packages when compared to something like a 190, or a P-51.

Geez, it's infantry, not infintry....

By the way, I've killed many tanks with bombs and guns in 109s and the FM-2 with six rockets and two 100 lb bombs can be used effectively against ground targets, especially lightly armored vehicles (and PTs), as well as static, soft base targets (ordnance, barracks and radar).

[tunnelrat]

Geez, it's infantry, not infintry....

FINARY!

[Tank-Ace]

Geez, it's infantry, not infintry....

By the way, I've killed many tanks with bombs and guns in 109s and the FM-2 with six rockets and two 100 lb bombs can be used effectively against ground targets, especially lightly armored vehicles (and PTs), as well as static, soft base targets (ordnance, barracks and radar).

Yeah, and I've killed tanks, LVT's and PT's, guns, ord, baracks, etc with an F4F-4. But does that mean its a ground attack fighter? No.


I'm not saying the FM-2 isn't capable of ground attack, I'm saying its not really a true attacker. Neither is the 109, in my opinion.

[Karnak]

Tank-Ace,

You've said you don't think the criteria (1000+lbs PDE of ordnance and at least passable for air-to-air combat) I am using is as good as it could be.  What do you think would be good criteria and how could it be applied evenly?  Rather than saying what isn't great let us know your idea for what would be better.

As I said, my original plan was to do 2000+lbs PDE of ordnance and at least passable for air-to-air combat but lowered it to 1000lbs based on several people's enthusiastic response to the P-40N's three 500lb bombs.

[Tank-Ace]

1) The ability to carry 1000lbs of ordnance or more, with at least 250lbs of that ABLE to be distributed into a single bomb or rocket, regardless of limits imposed on overall capacity by doing so.

2) maintain at least useable air-to-air preformance once ordnance is dropped.

[Karnak]

The only change that would have to the list is to eliminate the FM2.

It seemed like you thought the list was more flawed than that.


Personally I think the two 100lb bombs are nigh useless, but the six 5" HVAR rockets make up for that quite a bit.  I'd honestly be torn to pick which was better for ground attack, the FM2 with its two 100lb bombs and six 5" HVARs or the Spitfire Mk XVI with its one 500lb and two 250lb bombs or one 500lb bomb and two 60lb rockets.

[Tank-Ace]

HVAR's are nice, and really the only reason you could POSSIBLY add the FM-2. However, since the 2 100lb bombs kick it up over the 1000lb bomb limit, I would say that it shouldn't really count.


Also, might the P40 E and F make it in, if we ever get HVAR's for them (it WAS the E and F models that could mount HVAR's, correct?).