Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: titanic3 on June 02, 2007, 06:42:33 PM
-
does the cannon load like a tank, you have to wait a few seconds to fire again.
or does it fire as a semi-automatic weapon, if not automatic?
-
Like a tank.
Bronk
-
Aye, I've read about 3 sec or so per shot. I wish we had a bit more accurate gunsights for that particular weapon, but it'll still be nice to be able to actually kill GV's parked on concrete instead of them exiting flight when they hear bombs whistle in. Nothing more annoying than a 15 min flight (or more) into a base heavy, only to see your targets sitting on concrete with .EF ready in their text window.
Let's see 'em try to exit before a 75mm hits 'em. Of course, any GV'r worth beans is going to be real interested in shooting at a B-25 before the pilot gets a shot in. Will be fun :aok !
-
Most modern tanks w/ auto loaders are around 12 rounds per minute - give or take sight adjustments / targeting info.... average fire time might be around 8-10 round per minute..... in a tank.
add g-forces in a plane, ect that 75 might be a lot slower than the 20 rounds per minute suggested in what you read. Especially with one guy doing the loading :)
-
Originally posted by Warspawn
but it'll still be nice to be able to actually kill GV's parked on concrete
Er... no.
It won't penetrate tank armor, period. Might knock out the gun turret on an ostwind, but will not damage T34s, panzers, tigers, and probably not even the firefly. Might (MAYBE) disable or take out a M-8.
But then the M8 isn't much of a threat most times, is it?
Once again, HE round, in no way at all would it penetrate armor (repeat, NOT AP!). Meant for unarmored objects (barges, unarmed ships, etc). Best use for it would be town buildings. Forget tanks. They'd just hop in the pintle and shoot you down before you could damage them.
-
Originally posted by Warspawn
Aye, I've read about 3 sec or so per shot.
That sounds much too fast for me. I don't have a reliable source of information on this, but I do know that very few shots were fired on each attack run.
There was an automatic 75mm developed towards the end of the war, but this did not enter service. It could fire at 30 rpm.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
We wont get the 75 for the B25.
-
Greetings,
Standard for rearming the 105mm in recent armored vehicles was 5 sec. From Breech drop to 'ready, up'.
Now that is in a vehicle on the ground, self positioning cannon, and ammo readily available. What a 75 in the air, while bouncing around, with ammo not readily available from a sitting position... I dunno. Got to be standards in some manual somewhere.
Regards,
-
If HiTech models this AHII B25 like his one in WB, it will have the 75mm HE cannon as well as para-frags, time will tell though, time will tell. :lol
To answer the thread starter's question, no the 75mm was not semi auto. It was loaded manually so will function like a tank. This wepon will be great Vs. Structures but not at all Vs. Tanks unless you hit their treads (good luck with that one, especially if the person driving said tank is an LTAR) :)
-
Originally posted by MWL
Greetings,
Standard for rearming the 105mm in recent armored vehicles was 5 sec. From Breech drop to 'ready, up'.
Now that is in a vehicle on the ground, self positioning cannon, and ammo readily available. What a 75 in the air, while bouncing around, with ammo not readily available from a sitting position... I dunno. Got to be standards in some manual somewhere.
Regards,
(http://www.aerofiles.com/b25-cannon.jpg)
Don't know about turbulence and pulling G. But ammo looks like it's in EZ reach.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Er... no.
It won't penetrate tank armor, period. Might knock out the gun turret on an ostwind, but will not damage T34s, panzers, tigers, and probably not even the firefly. Might (MAYBE) disable or take out a M-8.
But then the M8 isn't much of a threat most times, is it?
Once again, HE round, in no way at all would it penetrate armor (repeat, NOT AP!). Meant for unarmored objects (barges, unarmed ships, etc). Best use for it would be town buildings. Forget tanks. They'd just hop in the pintle and shoot you down before you could damage them.
It is true that the 75mm HE round was not very effective against hard targets. However, the thought of using AP ammo did cross the mind of a few individuals in the 5th AF.
If you examine available records, the 5th AF ordered and received 500 M72 75mm armor piercing rounds. These were suitable to be fired from the M3 gun in the B-25G or from the T13E1 75mm installed in the B-25H. This is found in the 5th's ordnance requisition records, dated August 4, 1943.
This resulted from Pappy Gunn's attack on the Japanese destroyer on July 28th 1943. He scored 7 hits on the destroyer, but the HE rounds fired from the M3 gun of his B-25G did only superficial damage and didn't even slow it down. Other B-25s with Gunn sank it by skip bombing 500 lb bombs into its hull.
Gunn discussed this with General Kenney, who then called supply and ordered that armor piercing ammunition be obtained ASAP.
I can't find any record of these rounds actually being used, but it seems safe to guess that some were, at least experimentally.
As to reload speed, it was mighty fast. Gunn scored two hits in a Japanese transport aircraft as it taxied on the ground on one strafing run.
From General Kenney Reports:
Returning over the Jap airdrome at Cape Gloucester, Pappy looked ahead and saw his chance to redeem himself. Just landing was a Nip two-engined transport airplane. Pappy opened his throttle, pushed ahead of the formation, and fired his two remaining rounds of cannon ammunition at the Jap plane taxiing along the ground. One of the high-explosive shells hit the left engine and the other the pilot’s cockpit. The transport literally disintegrated. Pappy reported with great glee when he landed back at Port Moresby, “General, no fooling, as I passed over that Nip plane there were pieces of Jap higher than I was.”
We found out afterward that, among the fifteen passengers on that Jap plane, were two generals and three colonels on their way to a staff conference at Wewak.
Two hits that close together means a rapid reload time.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Um... did I miss something? Are we getting a strafer w/ 75mm? Or is he just wishing?
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Er... no.
It won't penetrate tank armor, period...
Mostly concerned about Osty's and M-16's here, who park on the concrete and exit flight for a successful landing anytime they hear bombs dropping overhead. I'd love for there to be a several-second delay on .EF if you're in a stationary GV, but that'll never happen. This will be the next best thing
A 75mm of any sort, HE included, will toast one easily. Especially one fired from overhead impacting into the open-topped crew area. Heck, from the sides a 75mm Pz-IV shell will shred 'em.
:D
Originally posted by Serenity
Um... did I miss something? Are we getting a strafer w/ 75mm? Or is he just wishing?
When the B-25 won the vote, Skuzzy had said he was looking forward to modeling it.
It'll be a hangar queen without it for any time period that has the B-26.
Ref: Rate of Fire
The manufacturer claims 4 rounds from the 75mm during a strafing run on a target. 3 -4 sec per round? I usually get fewer than that from a 40mm, lol!
-
Originally posted by Serenity
Um... did I miss something? Are we getting a strafer w/ 75mm? Or is he just wishing?
Hinted at.
Originally posted by Pyro
B-25 – Cool plane, one of my favorites as a kid and another sentimental favorite for various reasons. Good for several variants and who wouldn’t want to fly a plane that has a 75mm cannon and 14 .50s?
Bronk
-
So... is that a yes? Is it confirmed to have the 75mm? (And I dont think it will be a hangar queen, people will still favor it over the B-26 if only because its prettier)
-
Originally posted by Serenity
So... is that a yes? Is it confirmed to have the 75mm?
No.
-
Should be closer to 6 rounds per minute. VMB-613 after-action reports suggest that they could get 2 rounds off on a run starting from 1500 meters from the target. If they made their runs at 250mph ground speed, they covered roughly 150 yards a second. 10 second total time on the run, give or take. If they started with one round in the chamber, they only had time enough for one more round over that distance, which would be much closer to a 6 round per minute average (or roughly one round every 10 seconds).
-
...and of course if they started with no round chambered for safety reasons, they would get two rounds loaded and fired on that run.
So one round every 5 seconds. A bit slower than reloading your average M1-A1 120mm, but entirely reasonable...
Although since our engagement ranges in AH vs. GV's with this weapon will be very limited due to the gunsite, maybe a bit faster reload is in order to simulate overall effectiveness more closely.
Should be on-par with the Pz-IV reload; a tank bouncing along at 30mph over terrain is pretty hard to reload. Not simulated in this game, of course, since rate of fire is consistent no matter the speed or terrain.
Quick, someone go buy the dvd! :lol * Winged Artillery (1944 color) Nine 75mm canon firing B-25Gs of the 48th Bomb Squadron, 7AAF, based on Apamama in the Gilbert Islands, conduct a hair raising tree top level strike on the Japanese air base on Mille...
http://www.zenosflightshop.com/B_25_DVD_p/b-25dvd.htm&Click=87
-
Like stated, the 75mm cannon that was mounted on B-25's, both field mods, and later factory builds, were crew-loaded. Loader would unstrap a round, place it in the load tray, ram the round home, close the breach, and let the pilot know that a round was up and ready to fire.
The loader could not do this if the place were pulling any G's to speak of.
If HTC codes in the 75mm, how they address the rate of fire, and loading under G's, will determine in the end how many rounds you could get down range, how accurate, and how many shots per strafing run.
Of note, at least field modified B-25's with 75mm often retired their airframes in about 20 shots fired, as the rivets began to round out (at which point, the plane would become a parts bin).
Also, 75mm equipped B-25's seemed to be best at anti-shipping operations. Sampans, unarmored freighters, trawlers: all part of the effort to isolate and starve out Japanese held islands by stopping all their resupply efforts. Later, many factory equipped 75mm armed B-25's pulled the 75mm out and they field modified them by adding more .50's, as massed numbers of .50's (often with API rounds) proved to be more effective in anti-shipping and other CAS operations.
Also, 20 to 25 rounds was a typical load out for the 75mm cannon.
I think a lot of people think they are getting an uber anti-tank platform with a B-25 equipped with a 75mm cannon. I think they will be sadly disappointed.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
Of note, at least field modified B-25's with 75mm often retired their airframes in about 20 shots fired, as the rivets began to round out (at which point, the plane would become a parts bin).
Wasn't the -H designed from the ground up to mount the 75mm though?
I don't think we ever really mess with 'field mods' here, or else I'd want that super-strafer P-38!
Also, wasn't the T13E1 75mm specifically designed for the B-26H and the ground-attack role? Heck, if the Italians could do it successfully with a naval gun (102mm?) on their bomber... :cool:
Wednesday, July 28, 1943 was a warm day off the island of New Britain in the Bismarck Sea. Three Japanese destroyers were steaming on course 280° over the flat, mirror like water at 20 knots. Suddenly a lookout called "aircraft, low off the port beam!". Another lookout identified the planes as American B-25 bombers, notorious for their "skip bombing" against destroyers. All guns were trained on the interlopers. Suddenly, while the aircraft were still more than a mile (1.6 km) away, a great geyser of water shot up close by the destroyers. The lookouts began frantically searching the sea; there had to be a ship close by with cannon aboard. But there was none! Suddenly, one of the destroyers was hit. It exploded in flames and sank in just a few minutes. Was it possible these aircraft had some new and diabolical weapon?
On the contrary; it was the very same old 75 mm M-4 field cannon used to rout the Germans in WW1! A few months before the incident, Colonel Paul Gunn of the US Fifth Air Force in Australia, had experimented with the installation of a 20 mm cannon in the nose of a B-25. Colonel Gunn, abetted by a North American Aviation Company Tech Rep named Jack Fox, sent the idea to North American in Inglewood, California where it was promptly taken a step further and worked into the installation of the 75 mm cannon.
...It required a crewman to load, fire and extract the casing. And when it fired it felt like the aircraft had "hit a brick wall", but with its 2.95 inch (75 mm) projectile, it could turn a tank into scrap metal and punch very large holes in Japanese destroyers and barges at a range of nearly 2 miles...
http://www.aviation-history.com/north-american/b25.html
*edit: this article was about the 'G'; the H improved on the design...
-
Originally posted by Warspawn
Wasn't the -H designed from the ground up to mount the 75mm though?
...Also, wasn't the T13E1 75mm specifically designed for the B-26H and the ground-attack role?
Yes. VMB-613 typically carried 21 rounds for the gun, and their aircraft flew for months with no mention of rivets popping.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
Like stated, the 75mm cannon that was mounted on B-25's, both field mods, and later factory builds, were crew-loaded. Loader would unstrap a round, place it in the load tray, ram the round home, close the breach, and let the pilot know that a round was up and ready to fire.
The pilot would then have to make a final check on aiming, and fire the gun. The gun will then recoil in its mounting, the breech will open automatically, and the fired case will be ejected. The recoil spring then moves the gun back into battery. Only then can the loader insert a new round.
I can imagine the above sequence taking five seconds, if the plane was flying steadily.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
if the 25 ever gets a 75 the mossie should get a molans......and a CoG fix
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
We wont get the 75 for the B25.
I remember hearing VERY clearly from an Aces High administrator on one of these forums that we are receiving different models of the B-25 INCLUDING the one with the Anti-Ship 75mm
-
Quote or link, please.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Quote or link, please.
Regretfully, that was a long time ago so I have no clue where it is now.
Otherwise I have something I need to point out, There are 2 versions (as far as I know) of the B-25 Mitchell with a 75mm. There is the B-25G and B-25H the B25G according to sources is armed with a modified "French 75" designated the M4, The B-25H has numerous design changes such as the gun and the body of the aircraft. The B-25H is armed with a lighter 75mm T13E1 (Eventually used on the M24 "Chaffee" Light Tank, eliminated provisions for 2000lb'ers, eliminated ventral gun turret, eliminated certain armor plating, added two extra M2HB .50 Calibers, tail was raised an fuselage was deepened, dorsal turret was moved up to navigator's compartment and made larger, cockpit instruments rearranged,and FINALLY "Bay windows" for the waist gunners.
PS.: It would be much easier to model the B-25G since the B-25H is one real intimidating task when you also have other 'regular' B-25's to worry about
EDIT: Just a follow up for the message from Krusty after this one, It is more like around the time when the recent upgrade was made, but yeah I guess your right since that decision is likely to not be final (The one where they added the Sherman VC Firefly)
-
A long time, as in 3 years ago? Or as in, since the vote was finished?
Most of the stuff I've seen has not been definite. They've hinted (via Pyro I think) that we might get the 75mm gunned version, but no final decision was listed as far as I've noticed.
-
The 75 would be nice.... But just make sure thet we get delayed fusing for our bombs... Or parachutes for them.... So we can make REALISTIC low level attacks....
It's FUN to attack at 100ft.... It's BORING to level bomb at 6,8,10k.....
And skip bombing is a MUST HAVE as well.....
It would give some protection from fighters too... They would be limited in the angle that they could attack from.... No diving attack, no under belly attacks....
Wow think of the really great film from the AA gunners, under massed low level attack.....
At 100ft a bomber could plug a bomb right inside a hanger...
OG
-
Originally posted by OdinGrunherze
The 75 would be nice.... But just make sure thet we get delayed fusing for our bombs... Or parachutes for them.... So we can make REALISTIC low level attacks....
It's FUN to attack at 100ft.... It's BORING to level bomb at 6,8,10k.....
And skip bombing is a MUST HAVE as well.....
Other than jeeps and M3's, and maybe field guns, what do you plan to use parafrags on? Also, you won't be accurate, AFAIK, Norden bomb sites were not good for low level attacks, and certainly not calibrated to take into account the drag from chutes of parafrags. Delayed fusing? To what purpose? I've never gotten caught in my own blast area before in the game.
Skip bombing also would require a lot of coding to incorporate, and I don't see the real benefit, as TG's are so easy to kill now with level bombers.
It would give some protection from fighters too... They would be limited in the angle that they could attack from.... No diving attack, no under belly attacks....
Not fitr pilot's fault you all voted for a slow, early war, medium bomber with similar defensive limitations and lower performance numbers than the B-26. In fact, I suspect many fitr pilots voted FOR the slow, low performance, easy kill to pad their scores for a month or two after release.
Wow think of the really great film from the AA gunners, under massed low level attack.....
OG meet ghi. Watch for his bish missions in LW. Many Marauders swarming a field. Have film ready.
-
If anyone has flown a A20 only to watch panzers zip cannon rounds past your windshield, i dont belive the b25 will be to hard of a target to hit.
Its big, it cant realy roll or dive quickly.
my guess is, they will fall just as easy to a tank round as the tank will to its round.
"Would be neat to see a tank and bomber take each other out, only to call each other ho tards" :aok
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
Not fitr pilot's fault you all voted for a slow, early war, medium bomber with similar defensive limitations and lower performance numbers than the B-26. In fact, I suspect many fitr pilots voted FOR the slow, low performance, easy kill to pad their scores for a month or two after release.
What a joke.
ack-ack
-
Norden bombsight? Didn't work at 100ft anyway.... Thats why they removed it and replaced it with guns in the field....
If you have dropped 500lb bombs with contact fuses at 100ft, and HAVEN'T been taken out by your own blast effect... Then there is something wrong with the game.... Thats why they added parachutes to the 500lb'ers (in reality).....
ya know, maybe the (game) still needs to mature a little....
My knee is almost healed, so I'll be back racing my motorcycle's soon...
Won't have much time for Ether aces then...
So I'll just cancell out my scrip...
And try again next year...
Maybe the (game) will have matured a little more...
Se ya next year
OG
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
We wont get the 75 for the B25.
Which is why most ppl were foolish not to support the ME-410, but it was inevitable a U.S. plane would win; a.k.a. plane voting is bad, plane suggesting is good.
-
The ME.410 still had many of the same flaws as its earlier incarnation the 210. It's turret was not that effective and was prone to failures, Its flight characteristice were wanting at best and opening the bomb doors in the nose while in flight caused suicidal flight characteristics. But to each there own. I originally and still want the He-111 in its latest model (german built not the crapola ones built in spain). :aok
-
Originally posted by DaddyAck
I originally and still want the He-111 in its latest model (german built not the crapola ones built in spain). :aok
The C-2111 built in Spain don't take action in WW2 and for you info post 1953 C-2111 H-16L with Rolls-Royce Merlin engines performance was better what original german built.
Pedro's rules.
(http://k43.pbase.com/g3/96/541496/2/57503182.DSCN8369_edited.jpg)
-
Originally posted by DaddyAck
The ME.410 still had many of the same flaws as its earlier incarnation the 210. It's turret was not that effective and was prone to failures, Its flight characteristice were wanting at best and opening the bomb doors in the nose while in flight caused suicidal flight characteristics. But to each there own. I originally and still want the He-111 in its latest model (german built not the crapola ones built in spain). :aok
My point was if people wanted a big gun, they should have voted for me410, and when have you ever seen a turret fail in AH?
-
Wow imagine getting hit by that =O
-
Originally posted by BaDkaRmA158Th
If anyone has flown a A20 only to watch panzers zip cannon rounds past your windshield, i dont belive the b25 will be to hard of a target to hit.
Its big, it cant realy roll or dive quickly.
my guess is, they will fall just as easy to a tank round as the tank will to its round.
"Would be neat to see a tank and bomber take each other out, only to call each other ho tards" :aok
Read it.
-
Originally posted by Laurie
My point was if people wanted a big gun, they should have voted for me410, and when have you ever seen a turret fail in AH?
But....but....but..... Ben didn't fly that plane in pearl harbor.....
-
WHAT??? Sometimes the ninny bit goes TOO FAR!!!
ME410 was a piece of flyin junk....Looks cool, but it was total TRASH!!!!!
All it really was, was Willi's Ego Trip. END OF STORY!!!
Who is "Ben"??? And what does that have to do with ANYTHING???
Especially an Aluminum 75mm Pack Howitzer adapted to fit in a B25 airframe????
OG
-
Originally posted by OdinGrunherze
Who is "Ben"??? And what does that have to do with ANYTHING???
Especially an Aluminum 75mm Pack Howitzer adapted to fit in a B25 airframe????
He invented it.
-
Originally posted by OdinGrunherze
WHAT??? Sometimes the ninny bit goes TOO FAR!!!
ME410 was a piece of flyin junk....Looks cool, but it was total TRASH!!!!!
All it really was, was Willi's Ego Trip. END OF STORY!!!
Who is "Ben"??? And what does that have to do with ANYTHING???
Especially an Aluminum 75mm Pack Howitzer adapted to fit in a B25 airframe????
OG
Ben Affleck. In Pearl Harbor (the movie). Flew a B-25.
-
What is sad is if YOU people would stop pushin' this ben aflak horse poodo, we would have forgotten it by now.
Something tells me,you have seen that movie a helluva lot more than a person such as i.
Ten bucks, you can tell me the names of every actor in the movie you cant STAND. shoot yourself you contradiction's.
*breaths*
-
We found out afterward that, among the fifteen passengers on that Jap plane, were two generals and three colonels on their way to a staff conference at Wewak.
I wonder if any of them survived.
-
Originally posted by BaDkaRmA158Th
What is sad is if YOU people would stop pushin' this ben aflak horse poodo, we would have forgotten it by now.
Something tells me,you have seen that movie a helluva lot more than a person such as i.
Ten bucks, you can tell me the names of every actor in the movie you cant STAND. shoot yourself you contradiction's.
*breaths*
I DO hate the movie, and I dont know ANY actors in it. I didnt even know Ben Affleck was in it, I just put 2 and 2 together... Its a horrible, overly dramatized and absolutely unrealistic movie that spits on the name of those involved in the attack which lends its name to this filth. That is all I have to say on that matter. But I think a lot of people imagine they'll be getting 4 x 1,000lb bombs, AND a 75mm gun, AND CV capabilities on this bird, which is a load of crap. I just cannot WAIT to flame the **** out of all the squeakers asking why their "ub3r awesome affleck bomber cannot take off of t3h Tg!!!!!!!!11!!!ELEVENTYONE!!!"
-
Greetings,
Who is the Ben of Insurance (Aflack) that all keep speaking of?
And what does an Insurance Salesman have to do with a medium bomber?
Perhaps, some sage of the ways of old can elighten this confused one.
Regards,
-
Originally posted by Serenity
Ben Affleck. In Pearl Harbor (the movie). Flew a B-25.
-
Originally posted by Serenity
I DO hate the movie, and I dont know ANY actors in it. I didnt even know Ben Affleck was in it, I just put 2 and 2 together... Its a horrible, overly dramatized and absolutely unrealistic movie that spits on the name of those involved in the attack which lends its name to this filth. That is all I have to say on that matter. But I think a lot of people imagine they'll be getting 4 x 1,000lb bombs, AND a 75mm gun, AND CV capabilities on this bird, which is a load of crap. I just cannot WAIT to flame the **** out of all the squeakers asking why their "ub3r awesome affleck bomber cannot take off of t3h Tg!!!!!!!!11!!!ELEVENTYONE!!!"
Hey squeaker.
How about the guys with a bit of intelligence who voted for the B-25 for what it was/is?
Multi theater ac, that fills holes in multi scenario SEA events.
Anyone still complaining about how the vote went has the mentality of a 3 year old.
Waaaaaa I didn't get what I wanted.Waaaaaaa
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Hey squeaker.
How about the guys with a bit of intelligence who voted for the B-25 for what it was/is?
Multi theater ac, that fills holes in multi scenario SEA events.
Anyone still complaining about how the vote went has the mentality of a 3 year old.
Waaaaaa I didn't get what I wanted.Waaaaaaa
Bronk
Now, I must ask. Have I EVER said people just wanted it because of Ben Affleck? No. Im simply explaining who he is. Am I against the B-25? No. I actually look foreward to it, as I do not like the B-26. I was simply stating my feelings on a MOVIE. And can you really argue that the majority of people who voted for the B-25 understand that it WONT launch off of CVs, and WONT be able to do EVERYTHING?
-
It should be a nice ride, and even if it wont have para bombs or the 75mm "mostly useless anyhow" it will still be something new.
I think what will amaze people at first the most is..
1, How slow it will be
2, How poorly it will roll, climb and dive and compress at over 340mph.
3, How small of a target it will be for its given size.
Should be a nice shocker.
Wont stop me from flyin' it tho.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Hey squeaker.
How about the guys with a bit of intelligence who voted for the B-25 for what it was/is?
Multi theater ac, that fills holes in multi scenario SEA events.
Anyone still complaining about how the vote went has the mentality of a 3 year old.
Waaaaaa I didn't get what I wanted.Waaaaaaa
Bronk
:eek: Whoa :eek:
Thats harsh man, callin' Serenity a squeaker for just pointing out to someone else whoom ben aflak is (yes I know I prolly spelt his name wrong). Especially when Serenity said that like the majority of us they think that the film was / is a travesty to the real heroes of that era, and understands the historical importance of said aircraft in question!
That said :) I voted for the B-25. I like that plane for numerous reasons, first and formost teh range of FSO possabilities that it opens up. However, my first choice was the He.111 because I love the luft birds, and believe us LW guys need another crate other than the 88. Not to mention its role in history.
:aok
-
Originally posted by DaddyAck
That said :) I voted for the B-25. I like that plane for numerous reasons, first and formost teh range of FSO possabilities that it opens up. However, my first choice was the He.111 because I love the luft birds, and believe us LW guys need another crate other than the 88. Not to mention its role in history.
:aok
Same here. Heinkel is my favorite, but when that was eliminated, the B-25 is just so sexy... lol
(Thanks for the defense. Bronk is just joking though.)
-
Originally posted by Serenity
Same here. Heinkel is my favorite, but when that was eliminated, the B-25 is just so sexy... lol
(Thanks for the defense. Bronk is just joking though.)
You are quite welcome :D
-
Warspawn:
Nothing more annoying than a 15 min flight (or more) into a base heavy, only to see your targets sitting on concrete with .EF ready in their text window.
Yes there is.
Try defending a base for hours, battling countless enemy that have the guts to come back and fight one on one. Then to have one of the loosers fly for 15 minutes to drop 36,000 pounds of bombs on you from 200 feet off the ground. Creating a kill zone 500 feet wide by about 1 mile long. A tactical skill which most 8-year-olds excel in. OR driving a jabo and dropping two 1000 pound bombs from 1000 to 5000 feet from directly overhead onto the top of a vehicle which even with a FAR miss will kill most vehicles. But it's OK that defensively the ground units have virtually NO defense against it.
And yet more and more people want to have a "No Threat" way to kill ground vehicles. A way to kill a tank with little or no chance of the tank or ground units being able to shoot back. People will get into a fight at a V-Base and they can't kill a piece of armor when they are in a stationary Tiger firing an 88mm AP projectile. And because the enemies they are shooting at are better shots in armor, they want a "SAFE" alternative. SO, now they want to get into a bomber that can fire cannon rounds. Knowing full well that it will take 5 or more direct hits of 37mm HE rounds coming from an Ostwind to kill their bomber. But of course by that time they are long gone cause they came in a tree top level. But the Ostwind threat is only there if some squirt with a pistol in his plane hasn't shot out the turret yet.
Considering the trajectory drop a 75mm HE round would have, I would think that the accuracy of this weapon would make it ideal for the broad side of a barn or maybe the broad side of a ship. It would be VERY impractical against moving armor. An M-3 killing tool I might be good at though.
As a Bomber though, I would enjoy flying it. I enjoy the B-26s also. But I think they would all be good targets for my German 88.
LTARsqrl <> :aok