russain bomber

[blood_scout67]

 an example is the Long-range torpedo bomber, the Ilyushin DB3-2M-85
  General
Type: Medium Bomber
Crew: 3
Engine
2 x Nazarov M-85 radial engines | 750 hp | Pistons
Dimensions/Masses
Length: 14.22 m | Width: 21.44 m | Height: 4.19 m
Weight: 6500 kg | Max. Combat Weight: 8500 kg
Performances
Max. Speed: 439 km/h | Ceiling: 8800 m | Range: 4000 km
Armament
MG: 3x 7.62 mm ShKAS MG &
1x 20 mm ShVAK gun (not always fitted)
Bombs: 2500 kg of bombs or 1 torpedo (in/outside)a great plane http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/2-Airplanes/Allies/2-USSR/04-Bombers/DB-3/Il-DB3(2M-85).htm and this to anyone who doesnt say i do my research

[FBCrabby]

its a fat B26 with the wings of a Yak

+1

[blood_scout67]

i love to see this

[dirtdart]

Looks like a rip off of a C-46.

[davidwales]

looks a tough aircraft , and more armour than the 25h 

[Slade]

DB3-2M-85

+1

[lyric1]

 

[Krusty]

It's a pre-war 1930s design that was woefully obsolete before the war started. Naturally, the Soviets used whatever they could because they were desperate (they also used a lot of biplanes), but realistically the numbers of DB3 [that saw action] were low, and their use was removed from enemy presence as much as possible. If there were any enemy fighters in their area of operations they were shot down.

The DB-3F was redesignated IL-4, because they started naming things after the designer (like MiG and La prefixes on other planes you know). The IL-4 had a pointed nose with a flex mount MG (no turret like that) but overall it was the same plane. It got heavier as they put in some armor around the gunners, but overall it was not a "tough aircraft" per se. To save metal often parts of the fuselage and the outer wings were made of wood. It was slow and very vulnerable.

The only real use this bomber had was as a morale booster, performing night raids on Berlin -- inaccurate random drops, but still the Soviets used it to inspire their troops. It couldn't even operate in daytime because it was that inadequate.

Could we use it? Sure, I suppose. I'm all for more ealy bombers... But it wasn't a great plane. It wasn't even a good plane.

[blood_scout67]

It's a pre-war 1930s design that was woefully obsolete before the war started. Naturally, the Soviets used whatever they could because they were desperate (they also used a lot of biplanes), but realistically the numbers of DB3 [that saw action] were low, and their use was removed from enemy presence as much as possible. If there were any enemy fighters in their area of operations they were shot down.

The DB-3F was redesignated IL-4, because they started naming things after the designer (like MiG and La prefixes on other planes you know). The IL-4 had a pointed nose with a flex mount MG (no turret like that) but overall it was the same plane. It got heavier as they put in some armor around the gunners, but overall it was not a "tough aircraft" per se. To save metal often parts of the fuselage and the outer wings were made of wood. It was slow and very vulnerable.

The only real use this bomber had was as a morale booster, performing night raids on Berlin -- inaccurate random drops, but still the Soviets used it to inspire their troops. It couldn't even operate in daytime because it was that inadequate.

Could we use it? Sure, I suppose. I'm all for more ealy bombers... But it wasn't a great plane. It wasn't even a good plane.

so krusty i see you done your research i choose this aircraft from a lot of bombers as first we dont have a single russian level bomber we have amercian and british. and krusty a lot people a time ago said they would like some more planes in the countries we already have that had very low count

[MachFly]

so krusty i see you done your research i choose this aircraft from a lot of bombers as first we dont have a single russian level bomber we have amercian and british. and krusty a lot people a time ago said they would like some more planes in the countries we already have that had very low count

That's because Russians did not do much level bombing.

We don't have a French level bomber either.

[blood_scout67]

ok you say we dont have much in the french cattagory how had the most inpacted of the war in europa the french no because the french were conquenered the russians had the most inpacted as the russians were fighting the germanys all the way back to berlin and who won the war in europa that right the russians so back to topic which plane should we add in here one where theres a catorgory or where there isnt but dont get me wrong the french planes are cool and would love to have them but i go with country with more to offerhttp://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/2-Airplanes/Allies/2-USSR/Russian-Airplanes.htm compared tohttp://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/2-Airplanes/Allies/4-France/French-Airplanes.htm

[Tank-Ace]

No, USA, England, Canada, basicly the Allies, (I don't count USSR as one of the allies. They had a treaty with Germany right up untill June 22, 1941) won the war in Europe.

Russia doesn't want to admit that they even considered using western equipment and supplies, much less that they needed them for a while.

The T-34 was mediocre after mid 1942, and the T-34/85 was only OK in 1944.

95% of what you hear about USSR in WWII is just hype, and 95% of their successes were simply numbers. The IS2 was the only inherently good (as in not good because what it was fighting was worse) tank they produced, and even that had some rather large faults.

[MachFly]

No, USA, England, Canada, basicly the Allies, (I don't count USSR as one of the allies. They had a treaty with Germany right up untill June 22, 1941) won the war in Europe.

Well thankfully what you consider and what really happened are two very different things.

[MachFly]

ok you say we dont have much in the french cattagory how had the most inpacted of the war in europa the french no because the french were conquenered the russians had the most inpacted as the russians were fighting the germanys all the way back to berlin and who won the war in europa that right the russians so back to topic which plane should we add in here one where theres a catorgory or where there isnt but dont get me wrong the french planes are cool and would love to have them but i go with country with more to offerhttp://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/2-Airplanes/Allies/2-USSR/Russian-Airplanes.htm compared tohttp://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/2-Airplanes/Allies/4-France/French-Airplanes.htm

No I used France as an example. They had fighters yet we don't have them because they did not really do much. So same thing with Russia, they had level bombers but they were not used as their main force. Russian air force mainly used lighter bombers (attach aircraft), such as an Il-2.

Just for the record, I'm not against having the DB-3. I just don't expect it to see much use in the MA, and because of it's insignificant use in WWII they wont see much use in the special events either.