Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: FBCrabby on November 27, 2011, 07:23:53 PM
-
Since B26 is a fast penetration bomber with a respectable bomb load and capability to dogfight to an extent, would it be acceptable for the B26 to be able to fly under Attack and not just bomber? Afterall other penetration bombers like the Betty and Ki are listed as attack and so it the Ju-88 "probably its used alot for killing gv's"
If the use dictates the categorization in-game, then B26 fits it. B26's are usually the first to attack Cv's and other A.S.A.P bombing.
What do you think?
-
Since B26 is a fast penetration bomber with a respectable bomb load and capability to dogfight to an extent, would it be acceptable for the B26 to be able to fly under Attack and not just bomber? Afterall other penetration bombers like the Betty and Ki are listed as attack and so it the Ju-88 "probably its used alot for killing gv's"
If the use dictates the categorization in-game, then B26 fits it. B26's are usually the first to attack Cv's and other A.S.A.P bombing.
What do you think?
Stick the torpedoes on & yes. :aok
-
Yes... do this, that way it'll be easier to nerf when the A-20 gets moved to the fighter hangar and everyone switches to the B26....
-
Yes... do this, that way it'll be easier to nerf when the A-20 gets moved to the fighter hangar and everyone switches to the B26....
Agreed
-
IMO, the B26 should be classified as an attack aircraft. It doesn't have 6/50's in the nose for dog-fighting. If I remember correctly, the B26 was designed to replace the A20, yes?
I asked this question a few years ago and it didnt go anywhere. Lets hope HTC is watching this time. :aok
-
more I look back - this has been asked quite a few times...
-
Wait wait, hold on a sec! ...... the A20 is being moved to the FH :huh?
-
Wait wait, hold on a sec! ...... the A20 is being moved to the FH :huh?
Do a quick search for A20 & F3 Mode... nothing from HTC, but the apes are beating their chests like they did with the IL2.
-
If I remember correctly, the B26 was designed to replace the A20, yes?
Wrong B-26.
The Martin B-26 was a level bomber. The Douglas A-26 was the replacement for the A-20, and was redesignated the B-26 after the Martin B-26 was retired.
-
Too many 'A's and 'B's and '26's
-
switching the b26 to attack would be the easiest way to get fighter perks. it's easy to get 15-20 perks for sinking cv and wont even get scratched from the ack. not bad for 15 min worth of work.
semp
-
:huh :huh :huh
Not even a scratch form the ack?????
I haven't played online in 6 months or so... But has it really gotten THAt bad?
-
switching the b26 to attack would be the easiest way to get fighter perks. it's easy to get 15-20 perks for sinking cv and wont even get scratched from the ack. not bad for 15 min worth of work.
semp
Neg. It would still be bomber perk points earned.
-
:huh :huh :huh
Not even a scratch form the ack?????
I haven't played online in 6 months or so... But has it really gotten THAt bad?
Only fighters get shot down from ack, bombers rarely do.
-
do attack mode give you fighter or bomber perks?
semp
-
It's a level bomber. Not an attacker. It's not strafing those CVs down... 9/10 times it's bombing them level with a bombsight.....
Guess what that makes it?
-
a Bomber/Attack :banana:
-
do attack mode give you fighter or bomber perks?
semp
scoring in attack mode gives you fighter perks.
ack-ack
-
Comparing a B-26 to the A-20G is a bit of a farce, innit? The A-20 handles like a heavy fighter, say a 110G or some such. The B-26 doesn't handle like anything but a bloated heavy bomber. Guns in the nose don't mean much. They were for deterring head-on attacks as much as for strafing ground targets. They don't automatically mean it's an air to air platform.
It's a bomber, through and through. What it bombs can be varied and sundry. But it is a bomber nonetheless.
-
Comparing a B-26 to the A-20G is a bit of a farce, innit? The A-20 handles like a heavy fighter, say a 110G or some such. The B-26 doesn't handle like anything but a bloated heavy bomber. Guns in the nose don't mean much. They were for deterring head-on attacks as much as for strafing ground targets. They don't automatically mean it's an air to air platform.
It's a bomber, through and through. What it bombs can be varied and sundry. But it is a bomber nonetheless.
well I usually kill the vh at a port then use the main guns to deack, i can get at least 4 or 5 guns before i run out of ammo unless i get the lucky golden bb that sends me to the tower. I have a couple of pretty cool films where I use it to dogfight fighters somewhere. hell I am trying to find the one where I roped a p38.
still it is stupid to think of it as an attack the way ah defines "attack". it is used as a level bomber 99.99% of the time, the rest as a dive bomber.
semp
-
It's a level bomber. Not an attacker. It's not strafing those CVs down... 9/10 times it's bombing them level with a bombsight.....
Guess what that makes it?
What it does in game, and was it was designed to do are two different things. I'm not vouching to have the B26 classified as "attack" only, I'm on the bandwagon to allow it it be scored under the Attack category in addition to the Bomber category.
-
is the motivation behind this to earn bomber perks for carpet bombing GV fights?
-
scoring in attack mode gives you fighter perks.
ack-ack
Not necessarily. It depends on the plan's primary role, not on the scoring choice made by the player.
Fighter/attack planes always gain fighter perks
Bomber/attack planes always gain bomber perks.
The selection by the player in hangar is just for scoring
Note that the Il-2 only seems to be the only pure "attack" plane, but it's a fighter/attack in wich the fighter scoring option has just been hidden. With this trick (changing from bomber/attack to fighter/attack) HTC did remove the F3 capability, which is currently tied to the plane category and not individual planes.
Just adding the "attack" category to the B-26 won't mean you will gain fighter persk in it - it would still be bomber perks. :old:
-
just have 3 categories:
fighter/bomber/gv
and split all planes/vehicles among those 3.
semp
-
Well the 'attack' category lets you earn perks based on the primary purpose of your sortie. If you select 'fighter', you get more perks for kills, but fewer for objects destroyed and damage done. If you select 'attack', the opposite is true.
I'm not sure how the "bomber"/"attack" is divided, and what the difference is though.
-
Well the 'attack' category lets you earn perks based on the primary purpose of your sortie. If you select 'fighter', you get more perks for kills, but fewer for objects destroyed and damage done. If you select 'attack', the opposite is true.
I'm not sure how the "bomber"/"attack" is divided, and what the difference is though.
You haven't read my post at all, I guess...
-
Well the 'attack' category lets you earn perks based on the primary purpose of your sortie. If you select 'fighter', you get more perks for kills, but fewer for objects destroyed and damage done. If you select 'attack', the opposite is true.
I'm not sure how the "bomber"/"attack" is divided, and what the difference is though.
Selecting Fighter, Attack or Bomber has absolutely no effect on the type of perk points gained nor the number of perk points gained from destroying a particular thing. Those buttons only affect scoring.
Aircraft spawning out of the fighter hangars always gain fighter perks, aircraft spawning out of the bomber hangar always gain bomber perks.
-
So really, they just added another category of score, even though there was no need? Seems a little pointless.
-
So really, they just added another category of score, even though there was no need? Seems a little pointless.
^
huh? what are you talking about?
-
If selecting bomber/attack or fighter/attacker only affects which category your score counts towards (fighter, bomber, attacker, vehicle/boat) then that means they just kind of created the 'attack' score category without need.
-
If selecting bomber/attack or fighter/attacker only affects which category your score counts towards (fighter, bomber, attacker, vehicle/boat) then that means they just kind of created the 'attack' score category without need.
Untrue... "Attack" to a fighter is a fighter using ords...
Fighter = Air to Air
Bomber = Level Bombing - "Indirect Attacking" - "Yes I know its a oxymoron - but you're attacking something without being close to it"
Attack = Air to Ground Attack = Direct deliverance "Rockets, Dive Bombing" - "Getting up close and personal with your target"
-
^
huh? what are you talking about?
i was thinking same thing lol but WTF preceded my "are you talking about".
Q. b25/ a20, Boston, and that line of aircraft, is i click attack will i get fighter or bomber perks.
by the discussion I'm thinking bomber perks but just want to be sure.
i know i can just fly a sortie and find out but to set record straight for more than me, i think it should be here.
also correct me if im wrong but i think in attack mode killing anything gets added to your rank and scoring.
only planes killed and your aim count in fighter mode (and time, sorties, deaths... ect).
-
If selecting bomber/attack or fighter/attacker only affects which category your score counts towards (fighter, bomber, attacker, vehicle/boat) then that means they just kind of created the 'attack' score category without need.
I still don't get what you are trying to bring across. What "need" would justify an "attack" score category in your eyes? You somehow still seem to refuse to give up the perks-score connection
FYI, the scoring system - including attack - was installed long before anyone did even think of a perk system. Perks are what has been added much later and again: With no direct connection to the scoring system as perks are being used for entirely different things.
-
i was thinking same thing lol but WTF preceded my "are you talking about".
Q. b25/ a20, Boston, and that line of aircraft, is i click attack will i get fighter or bomber perks.
bomber
also correct me if im wrong but i think in attack mode killing anything gets added to your rank and scoring.
only planes killed and your aim count in fighter mode (and time, sorties, deaths... ect).
Yes, that's correct
-
You haven't read my post at all, I guess...
No, i just look at the pretty pictures. :aok
-
love you snailman :)
-
There should be a fibomtack mode, it'd be less confusing.
-
Lusche, in my opinion, a ground-attack type of aircraft, such as the Hs 129, Ju-88P (if we ever got it as a seperate variant), B-25H, and the Il-2, that are neither true level bombers nor true figthers.
Since the Il-2 was only recently switched over to an attack-only designation, that would (in my oppinion) be the first aircraft we have that would necessitate a seperate 'attack' category for the scoring.
-
Lusche, in my opinion, a ground-attack type of aircraft, such as the Hs 129, Ju-88P (if we ever got it as a seperate variant), B-25H, and the Il-2, that are neither true level bombers nor true figthers.
Since the Il-2 was only recently switched over to an attack-only designation, that would (in my oppinion) be the first aircraft we have that would necessitate a seperate 'attack' category for the scoring.
There is a seperate attack category for scoring
-
Yes, but my point is that untill recently, it wasn't needed.
-
I think the term attack is loosely applied here... but it's always been needed.
The P47 and P38 are without a doubt attack planes. The P51 is a fighter with attack capabilities, but it's main roll was that of a fighter...
So then we have the 262 which Hitler historically wanted refitted for a ground attack/high speed bombing roll, yet in here can only be scored as a figher... and we have the A6M3 which has a worse gun package and carries no bombs, but can be classified as ground attack.
I do think some of it needs to be cleaned up, but there will always be a thin blurry line between fighter and attack.
-
Yes, but my point is that untill recently, it wasn't needed.
Yes, attack was needed. I suggest you go back in history of AH and look up the reasoning behind certain design decisions. ;)
-
I think the term attack is loosely applied here... but it's always been needed.
The P47 and P38 are without a doubt attack planes. The P51 is a fighter with attack capabilities, but it's main roll was that of a fighter...
So then we have the 262 which Hitler historically wanted refitted for a ground attack/high speed bombing roll, yet in here can only be scored as a figher... and we have the A6M3 which has a worse gun package and carries no bombs, but can be classified as ground attack
I do think some of it needs to be cleaned up, but there will always be a thin blurry line between fighter and attack.
in the same spirit the spit9 can only fly as fighter
-
in the same spirit the spit9 can only fly as fighter
It can carry a 500lb bomb. I thought it had Attack as an option? The Spit XIV is Fighter only though.
-
Stick the torpedoes on & yes. :aok
:bolt:
(+1)
-
It can carry a 500lb bomb. I thought it had Attack as an option?
It's fighter only, because it has no ords in AH, only a drop tank option.
Pure fighters are:
Bf 109 E, F, K
Brewster
C.202 & 205
Hurricane I
Me 163B
Me 262
P-47M
Spitfire I, V, IX, XIV
Ta 152H
Yak-9U
The only non ords carrying fighters that do have an additional attack scoring mode are the A6M3, Yak-9T and the Hurricane IID. The A6M seems to have slipped through the net...
-
Just as I suspected, there's no rhyme or reason to the way attack planes are classified, just whatever blows the hair back :bolt: :rofl
I wasted 15 min one day looking thru the bomber, attack, and fighter list to find the il-2, to no avail! :huh
Then I was told you have to have "all" selected to find it double :huh
-
You're hammered out of your mind right now, aren't you STEELE :noid?
-
You're hammered out of your mind right now, aren't you STEELE :noid?
No, you are the hammered one (You still think you're in a Tiger II :uhoh)
What clipboard list is the Il-2 under now? They may have moved it, I forgot to check last time I was on; but, it is/was only on the "All" list for a good while!!!11oneoneone
-
Its under the 'attack' category, which fits it best IMO. Not a fighter/attacker, too heavy and unmanuverable (displays no fighter-like characteristics) for that, but not a bomber/attacker either, since it only carries about 800lbs of bombs, and doesn't have special provisions to either level-bomb or dive-bomb.
-
Its under the 'attack' category, which fits it best IMO. Not a fighter/attacker, too heavy and unmanuverable for that, but not a bomber/attacker either, since it only carries about 800lbs of bombs.
so its classification depends on how well it manuvers and how much it weighs? or how much ordinance it can carry? right. gotchya chief.
-
Bombers aren't killed by ack? I rarely fly buffs. Got bored and burned almost all my perks on a B-29. Cruised to 27K, headed to the strat and ack started the pig burning at over 300 knts. Go figure?! Ack kills me.
Not really bummed but do note I may be only one killed by auto ack at 27k in-game. Do I get a medal? Maybe a sign. Or maybe I stick to fighters.
Boo
-
so its classification depends on how well it manuvers and how much it weighs? or how much ordinance it can carry? right. gotchya chief.
Yeah, because classification should depend on which company builit it, or what color it was painted. But preformance and usage? Nah! silly me, what was I thinking :ahand?
-
Yeah, because classification should depend on which company builit it, or what color it was painted. But preformance and usage? Nah! silly me, what was I thinking :ahand?
You do realize that the companies that built it were told it had to be a bomber/fighter/attacker ect... right?
thats how they were classified. the US government told boeing that they had to build a bomber (B-17) right? not a fighter and classify it as such.
-
And you know what? Sometimes the governments get it wrong. Il-2 is almost the epitome of a ground-attack aircraft, and bears more resemblence to a fighter than a bomber.
BTW, what something is classified as and how its used is upto the military. If the USAAF felt like classifying the B-17 as a fighter, boeing wouldn't do a damn thing past asking about it.
Edit: by the way, why do you always try to be clever and catch people screwing up? If you try to act like an arse, you'll usually just end up getting your nose rubbed in it.
-
And you know what? Sometimes the governments get it wrong. Il-2 is almost the epitome of a ground-attack aircraft, and bears more resemblence to a fighter than a bomber.
BTW, what something is classified as and how its used is upto the military. If the USAAF felt like classifying the B-17 as a fighter, boeing wouldn't do a damn thing past asking about it.
Edit: by the way, why do you always try to be clever and catch people screwing up? If you try to act like an arse, you'll usually just end up getting your nose rubbed in it.
So your saying the Russian government got it wrong when the Il plane series making companies made their specific bomber/attacker? right. As far as your military classification process, thats partially right. the US government/military both decide on it. Not to mention i never said anything about the company classifying the planes.
I only caught your screw up because it stuck out like a fat kid in a vegetable shop. if i didnt correct it, you would have at least 20 different people biting your bellybutton over it.
-
Lol, kid you need to learn some manners. What I said is 100% correct as far as the game goes (which is what this entire thread is about, having the B-26's designation changed IN THE GAME). Its also correct as far as usage is concerned in real life.
No, you didn't say anything about the company classifying it. you said they were told to build a bomber, fighter, or attacker (which isn't entirely correct by the way, usually the military puts out specifications and description for what they want, such as a small, light-weight fighter capable of ground attack, and multiple firms submit competing designs. Whats asked for doesn't always end up being how the final product is used.)
But since you seem to be slow to learn, I'll give you some advice: stop digging that hole you're in. Digging only gets you deeper.
-
Lol, kid you need to learn some manners. What I said is 100% correct as far as the game goes (which is what this entire thread is about, having the B-26's designation changed IN THE GAME). Its also correct as far as usage is concerned in real life.
No, you didn't say anything about the company classifying it. you said they were told to build a bomber, fighter, or attacker (which isn't entirely correct by the way, usually the military puts out specifications and description for what they want, such as a small, light-weight fighter capable of ground attack, and multiple firms submit competing designs. Whats asked for doesn't always end up being how the final product is used.)
But since you seem to be slow to learn, I'll give you some advice: stop digging that hole you're in. Digging only gets you deeper.
So what you said about ordinance classifying the planes in game is correct? right. its classified as it was IRL. So no, the B-26 shouldnt be classified as an attacker. it should be classified as a bomber as it was in real life. and what it did in real life was bomb targets like a bomber. every mission that every plane went on was considered either attack or defense. so when the B-17's went to flatten Berlin they should be classified as attack because they went out and attacked them? or that they should be classified as a bomber because of the bomb load?
Normally, the company builds what the military ordered, and the military normally uses it as it was intended. in this case, the IL2 as a ground attack/bomber.
-
(http://images.yuku.com/image/gif/be1352d2efbd2191eca86c73b7f32c56294ab46.gif)
-
Man skorpion, you just can't stay away from that shovel. Who knows, if you keep digging, you might actually be able to dig your way out, you'll just end up on the other side of the world.
-
Man skorpion, you just can't stay away from that shovel. Who knows, if you keep digging, you might actually be able to dig your way out, you'll just end up on the other side of the world.
why am i digging a hole? also, wheres your return argument to why a B-26 should be classified as an attacker?
-
BEHOLD THE STEALTH FIGHTER!!!! (F-117)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/F-117_Nighthawk_Front.jpg)
Now if I could just figure out how to fire the guns in this thing...
-
Did the F-117 actually have, even in vague theory, any air to air capability whatsoever?
-
why am i digging a hole? also, wheres your return argument to why a B-26 should be classified as an attacker?
I can't answer as to why you're digging yourself into a hole, only you can answer that.
As to the B-26 being a bomber,
1) it has a bombsight, and is MORE EFFECTIVE when using it.
2) its built like a bomber, and preforms like a bomber. Not really manuverable enough to dogfight, like the A20, and even the B-25's in an emergency.
3) lack of ammuntion in the forward amament would suggest that it was for defensive purposes, and not really intended to strafe ground targets, which is essential to any attacker aircraft.
Now, it CAN bomb without the bombsight, it CAN dogfight, and it CAN strafe ground targets, its just not anywhere near as effective when doing so. So thats why it merits the bomber/attacker designation, as opposed to just strait bomber or just strait attacker.
@ Karnak, I think it would be the 1980's version of the A20, or possibly the B-25. It probably could dogfight in a pinch, it just wasn't very good at it, and it took a skilled pilot to do so effectivly.
-
Did the F-117 actually have, even in vague theory, any air to air capability whatsoever?
To my knowledge it has absolutely no air to air offensive capabilities. It should be classified as a bomber, however I believe it's technically an 'attack' craft... :bolt:
-
I can't answer as to why you're digging yourself into a hole, only you can answer that.
if you cant even explain it yourself you shouldnt really be talking in the first place now should you?
-
I can't answer as to why you're digging yourself into a hole, only you can answer that.
You asked WHY you're digging yourself into a hole, and I can't answer that. I can answer how if you like, but nobody save god can know WHY you yourself do the things you do.
-
You asked WHY you're digging yourself into a hole, and I can't answer that. I can answer how if you like, but nobody save god can know WHY you yourself do the things you do.
ok Mr. Literal, tell me how im doing it.
-
Making a ton of comments that are not only unhelpfull to the argument you're trying to dig, but are also irrelevent. If you're going to come out and say "Nuh-uh! You're wrong, see? Look right here! And THERE too!", then you need to have several things ready to go:
1) a counter-argument to likely responses
2) details, facts, and sources to support your argument
3) a willingness to admit you might be wrong. Because its gonna happen about 50% of the time.
You have none of these, and so really don't have a solid foundation for your argument (which is irrelevent anyway).
Loudmouth + wrong + irrelevent = dislike, or at best apathy, from other people. And since you insist on keeping it up, you're digging yourself into a hole.
If you stop digging, the hole will eventually fill up. It won't be quick, and any more digging will be noted, but it WILL fill up.
-
Making a ton of comments that are not only unhelpfull to the argument you're trying to dig, but are also irrelevent. If you're going to come out and say "Nuh-uh! You're wrong, see? Look right here! And THERE too!", then you need to have several things ready to go:
1) a counter-argument to likely responses
2) details, facts, and sources to support your argument
3) a willingness to admit you might be wrong. Because its gonna happen about 50% of the time.
You have none of these, and so really don't have a solid foundation for your argument (which is irrelevent anyway).
Loudmouth + wrong + irrelevent = dislike, or at best apathy, from other people. And since you insist on keeping it up, you're digging yourself into a hole.
If you stop digging, the hole will eventually fill up. It won't be quick, and any more digging will be noted, but it WILL fill up.
funny. i did one, two and three of your "list to be perfect"
just because i dont follow the same principals as you, doesnt mean you have to get all whiny towards me about it. not to mention the PM you sent earlier was some of the biggest whining ive ever heard from you. id like to know why im wrong here, please tell me how i was wrong. i want to know how i was irrelevant, this entire argument was on topic and was perfectly fine. not to mention that you dont even know what irrelevant means, it means not on topic, or not on the subject at hand.
get out of my bellybutton jager, i dont care what you think is perfect and nice. you spend at least 10 hours a day on these boards, and you have 1500k posts, almost 10 posts a day and not to mention you did that all in 5 months. congratz, its a new record.
-
u have 3404 :noid
-
3407, sorry fat fingers here.
-
u have 3404 :noid
he got 1553 in 5 months. i did mine in about 15. multiply his by 3 to get the same # of months and hes got another 600 posts on me.
-
Yeah, but most of mine are actually constructive. I try to help people out, and I contribute to the thread, rather than just yelling "Nope, U'r wrong!!" "Lol yeah, because thats totally how it went!" "You don't know what the hell you're talking about".
infact, I can't think of the last post of yours I've seen where you actually had something constructive to say.
Anway, heres how you screwed up:
1) tried to say I was wrong for considering the Il-2 as purely an attack aircraft in the game, because thats not what the USSR called it in real life. (both irrelevent, and not entirely correct)
2) you tried to say that what the government called something, or what it started out as, is more important than how it was used.
3) You're posts are all the same. Only the subject of your flame-attempts changes, but the content never does.
-
quintuple post
-
quintuple post
-
quintuple post
-
quintuple post
-
rage that post button much?
-
No, computer just started freaking out. It opened 5 different internet explorer tabs all doing the same thing.
-
No, computer just started freaking out. It opened 5 different internet explorer tabs all doing the same thing.
so out of nowhere your interwebz pulls up 5 different tabs, all pressing post?
-
Yeah, it did that yesterday as well. But I'm posting from a laptop, so I may have hit some wierd key combo, or clicked on something I didn't mean to, which had the result of duplicating my current tab.
-
Yeah, it did that yesterday as well. But I'm posting from a laptop, so I may have hit some wierd key combo, or clicked on something I didn't mean to, which had the result of duplicating my current tab.
a laptop shouldnt be any different from a computer, your not typing in a key combo to post, your using the 2 little buttons at the bottom of the trackpad.
-
Big hands/fingers. I always end up hitting either the enter key or the cntrl key when I'm going for the shift. Sometimes I even manage to get the alt key.
Like I said, I think I just bumped a key I didn't mean to, or accidently tapped the mouse pad (thereby clicking).
-
Big hands/fingers. I always end up hitting either the enter key or the cntrl key when I'm going for the shift. Sometimes I even manage to get the alt key.
Like I said, I think I just bumped a key I didn't mean to, or accidently tapped the mouse pad (thereby clicking).
the control/alt/enter key shouldnt do anything to affect it.
-
no, but cntrl or alt and then another key might.
-
no, but cntrl or alt and then another key might.
i tried about 15 different keyboard combinations, only 2 of which showed either microsoft help or a google searchbar.
-
Wait, why the hell am I talking about this with you? See? This is what I talking about when I say you're irrelevent and not constructive with your posting.
-
Mommy! Daddy! Stop Fighting! Its X-Mas!! :uhoh :uhoh :uhoh :uhoh :uhoh :uhoh :uhoh
-
(http://images.yuku.com/image/gif/be1352d2efbd2191eca86c73b7f32c56294ab46.gif)
-
To my knowledge it has absolutely no air to air offensive capabilities. It should be classified as a bomber, however I believe it's technically an 'attack' craft... :bolt:
Two words: air burst. Welcome to the 21st century cupcake.
-
Two words: air burst. Welcome to the 21st century cupcake.
:rofl
-
Two words: air burst. Welcome to the 21st century cupcake.
It's still dropping bombs to hit ground targets... very loosely, it's a fighter/attack plane. More properly it's a Bomber with attack capabilities (much like the B26!) :neener:
-
how often do you see a B26 over 15K anyways? o.o
-
B-26 should get under wing .50 cal gun pods.
ack-ack
-
B-26 should get under wing .50 cal gun pods.
ack-ack
That and attack mode, and I'll be flying the pattern at 20k around our friendly strats, drunk for hours. :airplane: (not very likely, but it would be cool in combination with the revised GV icon release in the pipes, especialy if a heavy strafer had a good/fun/notable role to play).
-
That and attack mode, and I'll be flying the pattern at 20k around our friendly strats, drunk for hours. :airplane: (not very likely, but it would be cool in combination with the revised GV icon release in the pipes, especialy if a heavy strafer had a good/fun/notable role to play).
Isn't this what A-26's are for? :D
-
How many guns could be fitted, and what was the preformance penalty?
-
How many guns could be fitted, and what was the preformance penalty?
The B-26 could carry 2x .50 caliber gun pods under each wing.
ack-ack
-
interesting. I'm assuming that this is in addition to the 5 nose mounted guns, and not replacing them, correct?
What an odd number of .50's. 7 fixed, forward firing machine guns.
-
interesting. I'm assuming that this is in addition to the 5 nose mounted guns, and not replacing them, correct?
What an odd number of .50's. 7 fixed, forward firing machine guns.
Correct not replacing them.
I'm not sure about the performance hit but I don't think it was a real issue. I don't know how many instances of some of the B-26s equipped tactical bombing groups (need to remember that the various AF units were divided into strategic, like the 8th AF and tactical like the 9th AF) but when when low level missions were started again in either late '44 or early '45 (usually in support of ground operations or free roaming targets of opportunity) some of the tactical bomber groups would put gun pods on their B-26s, as well on the A-26 and A-20s
If the A-20 can be scored as an attack plane, I think the B-26 should have that option as well. It was used in the tactical bombing role like the A-20, should have the same consideration.
ack-ack
-
You know, the performace hit is an excellent question I have too and I wonder what the hard data is for it. As is, the B-26 fits the definition of gun boat about as equally well as an equally armed sand barge, when you take into consideration that a P-47 can be armed with 8 forward firing .50 cals. However, the B-26 is capable of carrying twice the ordnance and a multitude more of personel, so adding two gun pods to it shouldn't be any worse than if you forgot ot jetison a bomb or two. I wonder if it would have a signifigant or trivial impact to it if it were included.
-
You know, the performace hit is an excellent question I have too and I wonder what the hard data is for it. As is, the B-26 fits the definition of gun boat about as equally well as an equally armed sand barge, when you take into consideration that a P-47 can be armed with 8 forward firing .50 cals. However, the B-26 is capable of carrying twice the ordnance and a multitude more of personel, so adding two gun pods to it shouldn't be any worse than if you forgot ot jetison a bomb or two. I wonder if it would have a signifigant or trivial impact to it if it were included.
internal weight has less impact of drag. drag requires 4x the power to overcome, weight just requires the same amount of lift to remain 0 net force.
-
so HTC - consensus says "Attack"
Can we have it for our xmas/new year package? :cheers:
-
so HTC - consensus says "Attack"
Can we have it for our xmas/new year package? :cheers:
Crabby we know this is just a sneaky way to get HTC to introduce the A26 Invader to AH. The B26 Marauder was a bomber not an attack bird! :)
-
Wouldn't mind the A-26. Though it would probably need a perk price, given the ammount of .50's it could carry (upwards of 12, IIRC).
-
I thought it was closer to 18 with the blisterpods and the top turret turned forward.
-
Too many 'A's and 'B's and '26's
lol, ya, my brain hurts