Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: DaveBB on October 19, 2013, 09:10:54 AM
-
is the B26. It's speed, defensive firepower, durability, and offensive bomb load put it #1 in this category. You can even strafe with it after your bombs are gone. The point of this post however, is to get the cockpit and interior of this aircraft remodeled. In comparison with the 3d modeling and historically accurate cockpit of other aircraft, the B26's interior modeling is horrendous. It's to the point that I don't even like to fly aircraft that haven't been updated.
So lets hear it for the B-26 Marauder, the aircraft with a training record so horrible that it may possibly have crashed more in training than combat. Ironically, it had the lowest loss rate of any allied bomber in the ETO and MTO.
-
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Wishlist
-
Don't forget about the invulnerable tail gun. :rolleyes:
-
I just flew a sortie where my tail gunner had 5 bullet holes in the glass. And not a scratch on the tail gunner. Hahahaha.
-
The B-26B is the sole remaining AH v1.00 3D model.
-
:aok
Put this thread in the Wishlist!!!
-
You can even strafe with it after your bombs are gone.
And that's why it should have the attack scoring category in addition to bomber. :old:
-
Most people do not know that the B26 was supposed to be the replacement for the A20. ;)
The B26 is a very good medium bomber, but I think the term "best" is a bit far best. It may be the "best" for certain missions, but it it does not have the best range for a medium bomber. The B25, He111, G4M, and Ki-67 can all go farther by quite a ways. Torpedoes? Nope.
I'm hoping it gets a model update and it acts more like a bomber than it does a fighter, I have a hard time understanding how it can dance as it does and keep its wings.
-
Don't forget about the invulnerable tail gun. :rolleyes:
Ha! I wish. A fart in my general direction and I lose the tail gunner on mine. :bhead
Also, YES to update! :rock
-
The B-26 could carry torpedoes, in fact they did at Midway.
(http://www.johngreavesart.ca/MidwayB26new.jpg)
-
Most people do not know that the B26 was supposed to be the replacement for the A20. ;)
The B26 is a very good medium bomber, but I think the term "best" is a bit far best. It may be the "best" for certain missions, but it it does not have the best range for a medium bomber. The B25, He111, G4M, and Ki-67 can all go farther by quite a ways. Torpedoes? Nope.
I'm hoping it gets a model update and it acts more like a bomber than it does a fighter, I have a hard time understanding how it can dance as it does and keep its wings.
B25- Too slow, no tail gun on early model.
He111- Early war design, obsolete. Slow.
G4M- Early war design, poor durability.
Ki-67- Fast, well armed, but fragile. Mixed gun armament is not a plus.
B26- Consolidated guns. All 50 cals. Turrets. Forward mounted armament.
-
Most people do not know that the B26 was supposed to be the replacement for the A20. ;)
The B-26 Marauder was not intended to replace the A-20 Havoc, that was the A-26 which was intended to replace both the A-20 and B-26.
ack-ack
-
The B-26 could carry torpedoes, in fact they did at Midway.
(http://www.johngreavesart.ca/MidwayB26new.jpg)
B-26s also dropped torpedoes in another naval battle on the same day as the Battle of Midway.
ack-ack
-
The B26 is the best Bomber is the game.
-
The B-26 could carry torpedoes, in fact they did at Midway.
(http://www.johngreavesart.ca/MidwayB26new.jpg)
So did the RAF B-26's in the Med.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/b26torp1-1.png) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/b26torp1-1.png.html)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/b26torp2-1.png) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/b26torp2-1.png.html)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/b26torp3-1.png) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/b26torp3-1.png.html)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Scan20-1.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Scan20-1.jpg.html)
-
The B-26 Marauder was not intended to replace the A-20 Havoc, that was the A-26 which was intended to replace both the A-20 and B-26.
ack-ack
I've read it outright that the B26 was on the drawing board to replace the A20, I don't remember the source nor the exact timeline. I'm not going to get in to a purse fight over the issue.
As far as torps go, I guess I should have extended my sentence a bit further: the B26 in AH can't carry torps. Maybe the updated one will.
Again... I brought in the B25, He111, G4M, and Ki-67 for comparison on range. Anyone compare climb rates and speeds at 20k? It gets interesting as the altitudes get higher. Bomb load and defensive guns (offensive as well), all favor the B26 without question. I thought that was obvious.
-
Being a medium bomber, I never found the endurance / range of the B-26 to be an issue for me, even when attacking several bases. The 26 is rather quick up to it's best altitude and has more than sufficient fuel for almost all tactical bombing at that alt.
I also have to say I never use more than 50% fuel in the G4M either, as going that far into enemy territory that you would need 100% is going to get killed you anyway :uhoh
-
I also have to say I never use more than 50% fuel in the G4M either, as going that far into enemy territory that you would need 100% is going to get killed you anyway :uhoh
The range demanded by the IJN (the customer) for the G4M is what made it as vulnerable as it is. Mitsubishi told them they couldn't make an effective warplane with the limitations specified and wanted to go to four engines so it could have the requested range and the needed protection, but the IJN insisted on two engines and heavy bomber range. To meet the demanded range on two engines Mitsubishi had to design it with a wet wing, the skin of the wing is also the skin of the fuel tanks. We know the result.
-
A B26 formation is the last type of bomber formation I normally like to try and take down. Their speed and defensive firepower makes them scary to engage, especially with a fighter not known for high speed, or low on cannons. They are a great medium bomber :aok
:salute
BigRat
-
B 26 = a faster, smaller, less fragile B 17. +1 for the remodel
-
For the longest time Airjer was the only one flying the B26. Now it's a regular in the MA. Darn thing is fast and isn't so much a sitting target like a couple of others. However like the thread states it's a medium bomber. So not a whole lot of ordnance. Still though as Airjer has demonstrated countless times it will sink a cv.
-
For the longest time Airjer was the only one flying the B26. Now it's a regular in the MA. Darn thing is fast and isn't so much a sitting target like a couple of others. However like the thread states it's a medium bomber. So not a whole lot of ordnance. Still though as Airjer has demonstrated countless times it will sink a cv.
???
B-26 has always been one of the most common bombers in the game.
-
B-26 has always been one of the most common bombers in the game.
While the metric of usage (K+D) is not really working well with bombers, as those planes in general (and ones like the Mossie 16 in particular) are often trying to avoid combat, it can show a general picture:
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/levelbombusage_zps1cfef777.jpg)
As can be seen, the 26 has never been an 'unpopular' choice.
-
For the longest time Airjer was the only one flying the B26. Now it's a regular in the MA. Darn thing is fast and isn't so much a sitting target like a couple of others. However like the thread states it's a medium bomber. So not a whole lot of ordnance. Still though as Airjer has demonstrated countless times it will sink a cv.
I guess you never ran into the deadly pair of B-26's flown by 999000 and tatertot on a fairly regular basis a few years ago.
-
I fly the B26B too :old:
-
(http://t.qkme.me/3pv9mh.jpg)
Don't need lanc pilots converting to a deadlier, faster, and more durable buff ride. They are happy in their ignorance, and I am happier for it.
-
For the longest time Airjer was the only one flying the B26. Now it's a regular in the MA. Darn thing is fast and isn't so much a sitting target like a couple of others. However like the thread states it's a medium bomber. So not a whole lot of ordnance. Still though as Airjer has demonstrated countless times it will sink a cv.
Yes, yes. The 26 is my default CV killer. It's speed gets you in quick so the admiral doesn't have a chance to come back from AFK to turn it. Then I drop alt and troll for fighters. Sometimes I even get a kill or two.
-
I am confused now. If the B26 designation did not come about to 1948 then in AH the B26 should be labeled A26. Would that be right?
-
I am confused now. If the B26 designation did not come about to 1948 then in AH the B26 should be labeled A26. Would that be right?
You're thinking of the Douglas A-26/B-26. We're talking about the 100% different Martin B-26.
-
Yes, yes. The 26 is my default CV killer. It's speed gets you in quick so the admiral doesn't have a chance to come back from AFK to turn it. Then I drop alt and troll for fighters. Sometimes I even get a kill or two.
B26 is arguably the best BOMBER in the game IMHO because of it's speed and versatility. Anyone who thinks it lacks punch in the defensive department isn't paying attention. I don't fly bombers regularly, but even so recently fought off three (a Spit 16, Spit 14 and a P51) simultaneous attackers after hitting a target. Lost a drone (which was soft anyway from the field 88) but killed the Spits and sent the 51 diving for a nearby base with an engine hit.
Not too shabby for a "amateur" buff pilot in a "medium bomber". :D :aok
-
You're thinking of the Douglas A-26/B-26. We're talking about the 100% different Martin B-26.
Thanks Karnak. Got it straight now. Did a google and got the rest of the story.
-
Don't forget about the invulnerable tail gun.
My grandfather was a tail/gunner who flew over 75 missions in ww2 and korea. I can confirm that the tail gunner is invulnerable as he lived to be 83.
(tried to post pic from dropbox but it wont show up)
-
is the B26. It's speed, defensive firepower, durability, and offensive bomb load put it #1 in this category. You can even strafe with it after your bombs are gone. The point of this post however, is to get the cockpit and interior of this aircraft remodeled. In comparison with the 3d modeling and historically accurate cockpit of other aircraft, the B26's interior modeling is horrendous. It's to the point that I don't even like to fly aircraft that haven't been updated.
So lets hear it for the B-26 Marauder, the aircraft with a training record so horrible that it may possibly have crashed more in training than combat. Ironically, it had the lowest loss rate of any allied bomber in the ETO and MTO.
:airplane: That was the A26 Marauder! What I would like to see is the Douglas B-26C "invader" replace what we have now. Who knows, maybe the manifold pressure gauges would work correctly in it, they certainly don't in the a/c we have now.
-
:airplane: That was the A26 Marauder! What I would like to see is the Douglas B-26C "invader" replace what we have now. Who knows, maybe the manifold pressure gauges would work correctly in it, they certainly don't in the a/c we have now.
No such thing as an "A-26 Marauder". We've been over this.
-
I guess you never ran into the deadly pair of B-26's flown by 999000 and tatertot on a fairly regular basis a few years ago.
Nope, 9s is Knights. However Airjer is the first to capture my attention.
I took a couple of sets of b26s up yesterday. Sunk a cv on one run. The second run killed a vh, FH, and dropped a couple of eggs on the town. Then straffed the town with the fixed guns. A few minutes later we captured the base just as a b25 was lifting. So I went after the B25 and we ho'd each other. I lost one drone. Then I tried to turn for another HO but was about to lose the drone. Meanwhile the B25 is firing those 75 mm at me. He finally gets on my 6 and we duke it out. Fun fight for sure.
-
Ironically, it had the lowest loss rate of any allied bomber in the ETO and MTO.
Mosquito?
Perhaps part of its survivability in WWII has to do with not flying to Berlin.
It is a good bomber in AH. The forgiving modeling of bombers also mean that after the drop it is almost possible to catch of it does into a shallow dive, hit auto-angle and man the guns. It is also a reasonable dogfigher...
-
I believe the mosquito is the best medium bomber available in Aces High.
I also agree that the B-26 is the best conventional medium bomber and I kinda like the outdated model. It helps remind us that it's a 60 year old design.
-
Mosquito?
Perhaps part of its survivability in WWII has to do with not flying to Berlin.
It is a good bomber in AH. The forgiving modeling of bombers also mean that after the drop it is almost possible to catch of it does into a shallow dive, hit auto-angle and man the guns. It is also a reasonable dogfigher...
Mosquito's loss rate is lower if you limit discussion to the unarmed bomber models, Mk IV, Mk IX and Mk XVI. If you include all Mossie versions the Mossie might not do as well. FB.Mk VI's did a lot of really dangerous stuff at low altitudes.
-
I was only referring to the model with the bombsight. The attack version is a turd in my opinion. I didn't take low level into consideration either.
-
I was only referring to the model with the bombsight. The attack version is a turd in my opinion. I didn't take low level into consideration either.
350+mph on the deck, 3700fpm initial climb, up to 1800 mile range, quad 20mm cannons in the belly, 2, 000lbs of ordnance in 1943 is a "turd"? Ok then, but I doubt you'll find many who agree with that assessment.
-
Yeah, lets not confuse real life with AH2. Bombers were death traps. We've discussed this before. Guns on bombers were almost entirely ineffective at destroying enemy fighters (Saburo Sakai had no problem downing a B-26 in his Zero). The Mosquito was almost certainly more survivable and adaptable than the B-26 in real life. Lets not forget how inaccurate level bombing was. U.S bombers were lucky to get a bomb withing a half mile of the target. This is not due to crew ineptness, the technology simply wasn't there.
So we have the Mosquito- Heavily armed, very fast, long range, and surprisingly agile.
and
The B-26- Level bomber, cruising speed around 200mph, defensive gun dispersion of 20-40 feet at 500 yards, chock full of high explosives, gasoline, and fragile humans.
But in the game with our laser .50 cals, 300mph 'cruising speed' and base-busting bombload, it's definitely a war winner.
-
It doesn't exactly suck in AH either. Sure, it isn't the greatest thing ever, but it is above average in capability, as its K/D ratio attests.
-
Mosquito's loss rate is lower if you limit discussion to the unarmed bomber models, Mk IV, Mk IX and Mk XVI. If you include all Mossie versions the Mossie might not do as well. FB.Mk VI's did a lot of really dangerous stuff at low altitudes.
Of course I was including only the bomber versions when comparing to the B26.
I was only referring to the model with the bombsight. The attack version is a turd in my opinion. I didn't take low level into consideration either.
Really? I consistently pull of a K/D of around 4 in the VI which I cannot do with most decent fighters at the same level of aggressiveness. It is a monster especially if it is fIghting its contemporaries.
-
I favor the K4 which has no problem running it down and sawing it in half. I think you're right when considering its performance overall vs the full range of fighters available. 4x500# bombs would probably be great for bombing ground vehicles too.
-
Guns on bombers were almost entirely ineffective at destroying enemy fighters (Saburo Sakai had no problem downing a B-26 in his Zero).
I disagree.
By most accounts I've read, Zeros had a very hard time against bombers. For every one such Sakai example (he was almost killed attacking SBD's, by the way, which are not noted for awesome defensive firepower), there are probably 10 or more where the Zeros or Ki-43's had big problems. There are examples of lone bombers surviving attacks from multiple Zeros (I've read an account of a lone B-17 surviving an attack from 10 Zeros and lone B-24's surviving attacks from several Zeros, in each case, the bomber shot down some of the attackers) and plenty of accounts of bombers shooting down attacking Zeros, Ki-43's, and even the more sturdy and well-armed German fighters. Many, many accounts of that.
Even statistics on German losses in cases where there was little or no allied escort of bombers is enough to show that bombers are not almost entirely ineffective at destroying enemy fighters.
-
Baldeagle I agree I think tatertot was one of the best in the B26, I remember Flying with 68KO in B26's also. Miss those guys they both added a lot to the game. 999000 <S>
-
Bombers were nearly defenseless against attacking fighters. There are numerous reasons for this. I've read several of the post war studies. Our own Tony Williams has given excellent information on aerial gunnery. The Strategic Bombing Campaign was stopped dead in it's tracks in 1943 after horrendous losses attacking ball bearing factories. On one of these missions (as reported by Adolph Galand), 60 B-17s were shot down, 100 were damaged, and only 25 German fighters were lost. 23 of the 25 German fighters were lost to escort fighters.
-
Bombers were nearly defenseless against attacking fighters. There are numerous reasons for this. I've read several of the post war studies. Our own Tony Williams has given excellent information on aerial gunnery. The Strategic Bombing Campaign was stopped dead in it's tracks in 1943 after horrendous losses attacking ball bearing factories. On one of these missions (as reported by Adolph Galand), 60 B-17s were shot down, 100 were damaged, and only 25 German fighters were lost. 23 of the 25 German fighters were lost to escort fighters.
I am not arguing contrary to bombers needing escort and that, if they didn't have it, they suffered big casualties. What I am saying is that the statement "Guns on bombers were almost entirely ineffective at destroying enemy fighters" is not correct. Guns on bombers shot down many German planes and were even more effective against Zeros and Ki-43's.
You give one example to support the "nearly defenseless" claim, but there are many other examples that do not support that. Take the 2nd Schweinfurt raid (with no escorts) as just one example. As it was one of the worst days for bombers with no escort and bad weather that spread the formations out, it is perhaps one of the most-conservative examples I might pick for my point of view. 38 German fighters were shot down and 20 were damaged. That is not none or almost none.
Moreover, I feel that bomber gunnery in AH is not horribly unrealistic. If you feel that it would be more realistic to remove defensive guns from bombers in AH, I completely disagree.