Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Saxman on March 16, 2007, 10:25:34 PM

Title: Not that I'd fly it, but...
Post by: Saxman on March 16, 2007, 10:25:34 PM
(http://www.interet-general.info/IMG/doolittle3.jpg)

(http://www.airforce.ru/history/ww2/photoalbum/b-25_doolittle.jpg)

B-25B

(http://image57.webshots.com/557/2/76/78/2512276780000388294gCjgMh_fs.jpg)

(http://airforce.ru/awm/hotsky/b25d.jpg)

B-25C/D

(http://www.ronsarchive.com/airsho02/images/2002_10_05_B-25J_44-31385_N345TH.jpg)

I live within about 15 minutes of this beauty's home base (glass-nosed B-25J).
Title: Not that I'd fly it, but...
Post by: Saxman on March 16, 2007, 10:26:07 PM
(http://www.indianamilitary.org/FreemanAAF/Aircraft%20-%20American/B-25J/85-B25J-45-8813.jpg)

(http://www.maam.org/flightsim/enhance/wwf.jpg)



(http://www.us-aircraft.com/images/B-25J/B251.jpg)

(http://www.us-aircraft.com/images/B-25J/b252.jpg)

You do NOT want to HO this. Solid-nosed B-25J gunship. Ten--count 'em, TEN!--forward-firing .50cal (8 in the nose, two on each side of the fuselage under the cockpit).

(http://www.air-and-space.com/edw99/b-25g%20al.jpg)

(http://www.kitparade.com/features01/images/B25G_ICR1.jpg)

(http://aerofiles.com/b25-cannon.jpg)

(http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/weapons/guns/b25h.jpg)

(http://www.sepsy.de/USAAF-jpg-Planes/b25h.jpg)

Something for those Tigers to REALLY fear. B-25G/H, with 75mm cannon.
Title: Re: Not that I'd fly it, but...
Post by: OOZ662 on March 16, 2007, 11:20:55 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Saxman
(http://www.interet-general.info/IMG/doolittle3.jpg)


This is the bane of the AH B-25 inclusion.
Title: Not that I'd fly it, but...
Post by: Krusty on March 17, 2007, 01:19:11 AM
The 75mm would never, ever, under any circumstances, kill any armored vehicle in this game. It might kill the gun in the open-topped ostwind.

It was HE, never AP. It was meant for shelling barges and shipping, and it was felt to be so poor in doing that job that they ditched it as soon as they could in favor of a standard hard nose and regular bombs/rockets.

I'd personally love a glass-nose C and a 8-gun J (okay, and a glass-nose J). A couple of folks would love to see the glass-nose-converted-to-guns C version as well.
Title: Not that I'd fly it, but...
Post by: BaldEagl on March 17, 2007, 02:54:24 AM
Hmmm, if your never going to fly it why wish for it?
Title: Not that I'd fly it, but...
Post by: Stoney74 on March 17, 2007, 10:14:35 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Krusty
it was felt to be so poor in doing that job that they ditched it as soon as they could in favor of a standard hard nose and regular bombs/rockets.



Not consistent with after-action reports by VMB-613.  Almost all the describe the use of the cannon report good effects from shots taken up to 6,000 yards.  Interestingly enough, what this squadron did remove from the aircraft was the top turret, and the blister pack caliber .50's.

http://www.vmb-613.com  --great site they put together here.
Title: Not that I'd fly it, but...
Post by: Wes14 on March 17, 2007, 10:25:56 AM
75mm cannon..would make the Ho'in La'7's day short:D

I'd fly it:aok
Title: Not that I'd fly it, but...
Post by: Saxman on March 17, 2007, 10:30:02 AM
Ok, then:

B-25C/D (same aircraft, like with P-51B/C denotes manufacture location) with hangar option as either glass-nosed or gunship variant.

B-25G/H (because you KNOW enough people will want that monster gun, for taking down town buildings if nothing else).

B-25J with hangar option as either glass-nosed or gunship variant (btw Krusty, that beast had more than just 8 forward .50s. You're forgetting the two gun pods on each side of the fuselage below the cockpit. I miscounted last night, that's TWELVE forward-firing .50cal).

Maybe I wouldn't fly it REGULARLY, but if I can ever get multi-engine aircraft to work again (both engines power up and run to full power, but they just won't roll at ALL) I might take the gunship up occasionally.
Title: Not that I'd fly it, but...
Post by: Wes14 on March 17, 2007, 11:05:38 AM
as a mostly heavy plane/bomber pilot i would fly all those planes:D
Title: Not that I'd fly it, but...
Post by: Karnak on March 17, 2007, 01:22:27 PM
75mm was hand loaded and could not be loaded if any sort of manuevering was being done.  Tests showed the 57mm Mollins gun to be much better for aircraft due to this shortcoming.

The Mollins was also AP, so it would be very nasty for tanks.
Title: Not that I'd fly it, but...
Post by: Treize69 on March 17, 2007, 06:28:54 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Saxman
You do NOT want to HO this. Solid-nosed B-25J gunship. Ten--count 'em, TEN!--forward-firing .50cal (8 in the nose, two on each side of the fuselage under the cockpit).


Ok, count 'em... 8+2+2=12... :rolleyes:

Ya know I love ya sax, but I just had to...

Bring the B-25 to AH!
Title: Not that I'd fly it, but...
Post by: Dichotomy on March 17, 2007, 06:34:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Treize69
Ok, count 'em... 8+2+2=12... :rolleyes:

Ya know I love ya sax, but I just had to...

Bring the B-25 to AH!


not if you're using Krusty math  ;)
Title: Not that I'd fly it, but...
Post by: Saxman on March 17, 2007, 07:27:36 PM
Hey now Treize, I'd already caught my error and corrected myself in a later post. :p
Title: Not that I'd fly it, but...
Post by: Masherbrum on March 17, 2007, 07:46:05 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Dichotomy
not if you're using Krusty math  ;)


LMFAO
Title: Not that I'd fly it, but...
Post by: Wes14 on March 17, 2007, 07:48:44 PM
:D gimme a 75mm cannon i wanna kill the ho'in La7's:D
Title: Not that I'd fly it, but...
Post by: Bronk on March 17, 2007, 09:04:02 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Dichotomy
not if you're using Krusty math  ;)


Zing!!!!!!!!!!

:D

Bronk
Title: Not that I'd fly it, but...
Post by: Krusty on March 17, 2007, 09:31:14 PM
If I just wanted only 8-guns, I'd fly the P-47 :lol

I was also thinking of the cheek blisters. I just didn't want to say "12 guns in the nose" and have folks thing I meant inside the nose.
Title: Not that I'd fly it, but...
Post by: Sweet2th on March 18, 2007, 01:44:26 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Krusty
It was meant for shelling barges and shipping, and it was felt to be so poor in doing that job that they ditched it as soon as they could in favor of a standard hard nose.



They sure did ditch it, they even started mounting them in A-26's they were so unpopular.Too be honest, someone drops a bomb on my friends while they are sleeping i don't think i would ditch firing that big arse gun at them.
Title: Not that I'd fly it, but...
Post by: Nilsen on March 18, 2007, 07:07:03 AM
bring us all those B25 variants.
Title: Not that I'd fly it, but...
Post by: stephen on March 18, 2007, 09:42:40 AM
for Krusty
My friend I believe your overestimating the the topturret thickness, a 75mm from a 30degree angle might bounce off, get up to around 55-60 degrees and itll likely bust through killing the crew, this of course doesnt mean you can fire at any part of a tankfrom hi up and kill it, a turret is a small target from 200ft up in a b25.............

The 75mm would never, ever, under any circumstances, kill any armored vehicle in this game. It might kill the gun in the open-topped ostwind.
Title: Not that I'd fly it, but...
Post by: BaDkaRmA158Th on March 18, 2007, 02:56:57 PM
"Counts with fingers"

Hold da heck on..
"nose""gun package""top turret" "gunsgunsguns"
    8+            4+                2+                =14

Sorry to ruin your math guys but thats turret up top is capable of being turned and fired forwards.

Therefor you get x2 more guns.


Just thought you may wanna know. ;)
Title: Not that I'd fly it, but...
Post by: Krusty on March 18, 2007, 04:05:28 PM
For "sweet2th": they tested it on the A-26. It was far from common.

For Stephen: It was not an armor piercing round. It never had AP rounds. It was HE only, and it would detonate on contact with any tank you fired it at (exploding harmlessly outside the armor plate, zero penetration)

EDIT: The japanese tanks were so poorly made it might take out one or two types, but for all purposes in AH it would only work on jeeps or M3s or LVts. Flaks/Pnzrs/Tigrs/T34s would be immune to its firepower.
Title: Not that I'd fly it, but...
Post by: BaDkaRmA158Th on March 18, 2007, 04:59:08 PM
I wouldnt say useless, it could still track a tank,and for the flak if hit from a high angle would kill everyone in the gun.

m8's have weak tires for even a ground hit near by might pop them.
m16's have tires also,so they could be stoped or damaged.

Dunno if i would under estimate a 75mm high exspolsive round being fired from 300+ mph :|
blowing up on impact or not,the damage would still be brutal.
"man how i would love to place a round under a t34 and watch it flip & roll."

Abit,would still make a panzer or tiger laugh. :)
Title: Not that I'd fly it, but...
Post by: Krusty on March 18, 2007, 05:07:02 PM
A single rocket probably has more explosives onboard than a single 75mm HE round. Sure, you might track something... if you hit it enough, in the same spot, with 10 consecutive passes all hitting the exact same spot. But in a single pass you could drop a single bomb on it and simply blow it up, outright.
Title: Not that I'd fly it, but...
Post by: Ball on March 18, 2007, 05:21:49 PM
I think it could be fun.

Quote
Originally posted by Krusty
A single rocket probably has more explosives onboard than a single 75mm HE round. Sure, you might track something... if you hit it enough, in the same spot, with 10 consecutive passes all hitting the exact same spot. But in a single pass you could drop a single bomb on it and simply blow it up, outright.


That is like saying, why take a 190 to fight when you can simply take an LA7?

Variation and challenge is a great thing.
Title: Not that I'd fly it, but...
Post by: Bronk on March 19, 2007, 10:32:20 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Krusty
A single rocket probably has more explosives onboard than a single 75mm HE round. Sure, you might track something... if you hit it enough, in the same spot, with 10 consecutive passes all hitting the exact same spot. But in a single pass you could drop a single bomb on it and simply blow it up, outright.


75 mm is just under 3".  A 5" rocket is basically a 5" gun shell with a rocket motor.

Now what's easier to aim?

The 75mm cannon is more or less directly mounted under the pilot.
So where his nose is pointing thats where its going to hit.
I'd guess there is much less drop also.

All rockets except for P-38 G/J are wing mounted. You have to compensate for faster drop and wing mounting.

Krusty I know you fly FSO and scenario.   Think about what all B25 models would bring to the table there.

To simulate destroying shipping use a CV group, destroy cv and cruiser and puffy on destroyers.
Killing the destroyers  would simulate stopping a resupply group.

Just some stuff to think about.

Bronk
Title: Not that I'd fly it, but...
Post by: Stoney74 on March 19, 2007, 08:07:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Bronk
75 mm is just under 3".  A 5" rocket is basically a 5" gun shell with a rocket motor.

Now what's easier to aim?

The 75mm cannon is more or less directly mounted under the pilot.
So where his nose is pointing thats where its going to hit.
I'd guess there is much less drop also.

Bronk



Diagram here (http://http://www.vmb-613.com/photographs/t13e1_cannon.html)

System configuration here (http://www.vmb-613.com/photographs/apg-13a.html)

Excerpt from the website:

Radar Gun Director:  Each of VMB-613's aircraft was equipped with the AN/APG-13A radar gun director for the 75mm cannon.  Commonly referred to as Falcon, it was developed by General Electric and operated on the S-band.  It was designed to provide continuous range data and elevation corrections to the pilot's gun sight, allowing for the trajectory of each 15 pound shell at ranges of up to 5,000 yards.  With this range, VMB-613's aircraft could effectively engage shipping targets while remaining outside of the range of light anti-aircraft fire.  Designed for use against shipping targets, the AN/APG-13A was not effective against most land targets as rough terrain did not allow for good target discrimination at ranges in excess of 1,500 yards.  The entire AN/APG-13A weighed approximately 105 pounds and consisted of the following:

Endfire Antenna - The most visible component, the endfire antenna, was mounted on the upper-nose of the aircraft on the axis of the 75mm cannon.  It provided a sweep of 28 degrees of azimuth and elevation.  

Indicator - The indicator was a radar scope that was operated by the copilot.  Once the pilot had identified his target, the copilot would acquire it on the indicator at about 6,000 yards.  As the run-to-target continued, the copilot would turn a crank on the side of the indicator unit to keep the range step on the radar scope lined up with the left hand side of the target echo.  This action would turn a cam which would change the angle of the pilot's optical reflector sight, thereby providing continual range corrections to the gun sight.  This eliminated the need for the pilot to estimate ranges and manually adjust the optical reflector sight.  

Range Dial - The third component, the range dial, was located near the gun sight.  Operated by the same action that adjusted the optical reflector sight, the range dial provided the pilot with the range to the target, enabling the pilot to determine when to commence firing and when to break off the attack in order to remain outside the range of light anti-aircraft fire.

Lighthouse Tube Receiver - The final component, the lighthouse tube receiver, was located under the copilot's seat.  This device received the radar signal from the endfire antenna and fed the signal to the indicator.

A diagram of the AN/APG-13A radar gun director and photographs of the indicator, lighthouse tube receiver, and range dial is provided at the following link:  AN/APG-13A Radar Gun Director

Annecdote from one of the Marines:

"Anytime an aircraft returned from a mission, we needed to find out if the 75mm cannon had been used.  If it had, we began a lengthy process to look over the entire aircraft.  This was necessary as the firing of that cannon caused hydraulic leaks, and rivets in the airframe to shear-off.  We used flashlights and crawled over every inch of the aircraft to locate leaks and damaged rivets so that they could be repaired before the next mission.  Contributed by Michael Jacus Jr."

I encourage anyone that's interested in learning more about the aircraft and weapon system, check out the VMB-613 website at http://www.vmb-613.com.  If you click on the links to the months they were operational, you can read copies of the after-action reports.  There are quite a few that reference using the 75mm cannon against gun emplacements, buildings, docks, and some small surface craft.  Whether or not the 75mm could take out a tank is, IMHO, looking at the capability the wrong way.  With an effective range of over 5 kilometers, you begin to be able to plink ships from outside ack range.  Pretty nice capability if you ask me, even though puffy would still be an issue.
Title: Not that I'd fly it, but...
Post by: Bronk on March 20, 2007, 09:56:53 AM
Stoney

Thats some good info. However just like the 51-d's lead comp sight. it would not be modeled in game.

With a bit of practice I think it would be possible to make longer shots.

Bronk
Title: Not that I'd fly it, but...
Post by: Stoney74 on March 20, 2007, 10:13:40 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Bronk
Stoney

Thats some good info. However just like the 51-d's lead comp sight. it would not be modeled in game.

With a bit of practice I think it would be possible to make longer shots.

Bronk


Agreed Bronk.  My point was to show that they didn't just "throw in a 75mm gun" for the H model and force the pilots to use Kentucky windage :)
It was a pretty sophisticated weapon system for the time, and, if the after action reports on the site are accurate, it was highly effective, for its intended purpose.
Title: Not that I'd fly it, but...
Post by: Bronk on March 20, 2007, 10:27:05 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Stoney74
Agreed Bronk.  My point was to show that they didn't just "throw in a 75mm gun" for the H model and force the pilots to use Kentucky windage :)
It was a pretty sophisticated weapon system for the time, and, if the after action reports on the site are accurate, it was highly effective, for its intended purpose.



Ahhh, rgr that.


:aok

Bronk
Title: Not that I'd fly it, but...
Post by: BBBB on March 20, 2007, 10:54:13 AM
I never understood why this plane was left out of the set. We have an RV8 but no B25..go figure.


-BB
Title: Not that I'd fly it, but...
Post by: Krusty on March 20, 2007, 11:01:58 AM
Er... the RV8 isn't part of the game, really. It was a test device. Hitech owns a real RV8. By comparing the real thing with the virtual thing, they could see if it was behaving properly (or if they realized they needed to tweak lift flow or whatever).

They only "enabled" it after a con where it was unveiled. It's not a real plane in the game, and any field it's enabled at is a bug. It should not be enabled in any online arena unless Hitech or somebody at HTC enables it for a short period of time (for fun).
Title: Not that I'd fly it, but...
Post by: BBBB on March 20, 2007, 01:31:46 PM
It has been awhile since you played in the MA blue arena hasnt it?



-Wells
Title: Not that I'd fly it, but...
Post by: OOZ662 on March 20, 2007, 10:33:43 PM
Quote
Originally posted by BBBB
It has been awhile since you played in the MA blue arena hasnt it?


Quote
Originally posted by Krusty
and any field it's enabled at is a bug. It should not be enabled in any online arena