Help me guys - perk / improved torpedo bomber?

[-duma-]

Were any aircraft created during WWII suitable for a possible perk torpedo bomber? Also as a non-perk I'm very keen on the idea of the Beaufighter torpedo bomber (would stop planes taking off the carrier trying to HO me   but how many torps did they carry?

[Vermillion]

Duma, check out the Aichi B7A-2  Ryusei (Shooting Star) Codenamed: 'Grace'

Late War Japanese single engine torpedo bomber, but it had very low production and there were no carriers left from which to operate, so they were all land based.

I did a writeup on them a long time ago, but it still applies, at:
 http://www.vermin.net/archives/B7A-2.htm

Of course there are also P1Y "Frances" Medium Bomber and Ki-67 "Peggy" Medium Bomber that were both very capable in the torpedo attack role, but I wouldn't expect either of them to be perked.

Just a few that quickly came to mind.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

[BUG_EAF322]

They dropped torpedo's with the P38
 

[LJK Raubvogel]

They could give us the DO-217 with Hs293-A1 Anti shipping missiles   500kg warhead, max range of 5km when launched at 25,000ft. Range of 4km when launched at 17,000ft.

[juzz]

F7F-3 could carry a torp I think?  

[TheWobble]

 

They could give us the DO-217 with Hs293-A1 Anti shipping missiles  500kg warhead, max range of 5km when launched at 25,000ft. Range of 4km when launched at 17,000ft.

Umm a normal bomb goes 4.7 miles in ah when dropped from a bomber because it stays directly under it...so a normal bomb would go further than that missle in this game..

[M.C.202]

juzz said:


> F7F-3 could carry a torp I think?


Yep, all F7F's could carry one 21 inch torp. No fear of head-on's, with four 20mm and
four.50mgs. all pointing forward  :-)


------------------
M.C.202
Dino in Reno

[This message has been edited by M.C.202 (edited 02-23-2001).]

[brady]

  BAKA BABBY BAKA.oh yaaaaaaaaa

   


Brady

------------------
 

[This message has been edited by brady (edited 02-23-2001).]

[Kieren]

SM.79 was considered one of the best torpedo bombers of the war, and it is Italian- definitely a side lacking planes at the moment.

[Kieren]

Forgot the designation, but wasn't the Japanese "Tenzen" the successor to the Kate? It too should have good performance...

[LJK Raubvogel]

 

Originally posted by TheWobble:

Umm a normal bomb goes 4.7 miles in ah when dropped from a bomber because it stays directly under it...so a normal bomb would go further than that missle in this game..

Huh? Haven't you started enough "bombs have no E" threads. Read the thread title. It was asking for suggestions for a perk bomber, not for the 50th whine about something that has been beaten into the ground.

Hs293 would be a good perkable weapon. The Fritz-X glide bomb woud be another nice option.

[TheWobble]

 

Huh? Haven't you started enough "bombs have no E" threads. Read the thread title. It was asking for suggestions for a perk bomber, not for the 50th whine about something that has been beaten into the ground

No I wasnt stating the facts again, i was just saying that that weapon would be useless in ah because it wouldent go further than a normal bomb.

[LJK Raubvogel]

 

Originally posted by TheWobble:
No I wasnt stating the facts again, i was just saying that that weapon would be useless in ah because it wouldent go further than a normal bomb.

Wobble, crack open a physics book, then tell me how something with 2 rocket engines isn't going to go farther than something that has no propulsion? Also, I'd like to hear why it is you think that bombs fall right underneath the bomber? And don't give me the shadow crap, has nothing to do with it. According to your theory, the bombs fall straight down. If that were so, you could just do an orbit over an airfield dropping bombs, right? You wouldn't need to get into the bombsight until you were RIGHT over the target. The bombs have a trajectory which I am too lazy to figure out right now, but it would be a function of the planes speed, altitude, gravity, and the terminal velocity of the bombs.

So, all things being equal, how does adding propulsion to the formula not increase range?

[TheWobble]

 

Wobble, crack open a physics book, then tell me how something with 2 rocket engines isn't going to go farther than something that has no propulsion?

the specks given were max range of 5km when launched at 25,000ft


Raub, when you drop the bombs they stay even with the bomber until they hit the groun in AH  they wouldent really do that IRL but in ah they do.

25,000 is about 4.7 miles

so since the bombs stay right under the bomber in ah they will go foreward about almost 5 miles before they hit the ground (speed sensitive of course)

so a rocket bomb that only went 5 km foreward from 25,000 feet wouldent have any more range than a normal bomb in AH.

unless the bomber was going VERY slow (155-175) about then the rocket bomb would go further but who goes that slow?

 

According to your theory, the bombs fall straight down

No they just stay even with the bomber once dropped, im not saying the fall straight down..never did.

 

So, all things being equal, how does adding propulsion to the formula not increase range?

It should, but in AH drag is not modeled on the bombs so they carry further than they would in real life, thats why they stay right under the bomber till they hit the ground.  

a rocket bomb traveling only 5km sure doesent sound like very far considering it is dropped from 25,000 feet..not far at all..that doesent sound right.

[juzz]

u = initial velocity(=0 in this case)
t = time
a = acceleration
s = displacement

Using the formula: s = u*t + 0.5*a*t^2

We get a time of 39.44 seconds for a bomb to reach the ground when dropped from an altitude of 25,000ft(without drag).

In that time a bomber travelling at 250mph covers 2.74 miles - not 4.7 miles, for that you would need a bomber doing 429mph.