Douglas A-26 Invader

[Karnak]

What makes it perkable?  It is slower than a mossie and carries a similar load to the A20.  It is likely less agile than an A20, I won't know till I try one out.  The last one I flew was back in AW.

The Mossie is a fighter, not an attack aircraft, and carries far less than the A-20 let alone the A-26.  The A-26 is faster than the A-20 and carries half again, or more, than the A-20.  Its comparative lack of agility is irrelevant as it is an attack aircraft, not a fighter.  The reason it will be perked is that it would be too dominant in its role if it were free.  It is likely to be the bottom end perk bomber with a cost of 5-10 or so perks.

[SmokinLoon]

The Mossie is a fighter, not an attack aircraft, and carries far less than the A-20 let alone the A-26.  The A-26 is faster than the A-20 and carries half again, or more, than the A-20.  Its comparative lack of agility is irrelevant as it is an attack aircraft, not a fighter.  The reason it will be perked is that it would be too dominant in its role if it were free.  It is likely to be the bottom end perk bomber with a cost of 5-10 or so perks.

*gasp*   Did you just call the most versatile aircraft in WWII a lowly "fighter"??? Say it isnt so!!! 


I'd beg to differ that the Mossi FB Mk IV was indeed more of an attack aircraft than any other role it could have and did perform.      

[Butcher]

The Mossie is a fighter, not an attack aircraft, and carries far less than the A-20 let alone the A-26.  The A-26 is faster than the A-20 and carries half again, or more, than the A-20.  Its comparative lack of agility is irrelevant as it is an attack aircraft, not a fighter.  The reason it will be perked is that it would be too dominant in its role if it were free.  It is likely to be the bottom end perk bomber with a cost of 5-10 or so perks.

Well, on an A-26b (Early) it carried 6x 50s in the nose, A-26B carried 8x 50s in the nose.
Optional Gun packages are this:
2x .50 cals and a 75mm Cannon
4x .50 cals and a 37mm cannon
2x .50 cals and a 37mm cannon
75mm cannon and a 37mm cannon
2x 37mm cannons

The Gun pods under the wings now, carry 4x .50 cals under the wings, however late production A-26B's carried 3x .50cals per wing (removes the gunpods which degraded performance)

Top that with 6,000lbs of Ords and from 16x to 18 .50cal machine guns.

There are glass nose B-26s used for level bombing, you simply lose the nose mounted and gain the wing mounted machine guns for forward armament.

So in retrospect, it will easily be perked, most likely something between 20 and 50 perks.
From what I see, A-26s served in action during Battle of the Bulge, the Pacific and Italy.

Pacific service - it was in the philippines, pretty late action, overall I can say it served quite a few full squadrons in combat action.

[Ack-Ack]

None of the operational A-26 units ever used cannon mounted gun packages, all were .50 cal guns.  Late model A-26s still used gun pods, especially when they were finally cleared to start up low level attack missions.

ack-ack

[Butcher]

None of the operational A-26 units ever used cannon mounted gun packages, all were .50 cal guns.  Late model A-26s still used gun pods, especially when they were finally cleared to start up low level attack missions.

ack-ack

I think it was because the earliest versions used the glass nose right? I figured the cannons were either prototype versions or added after war.
Sorry didn't get a chance to run down on the information, would of left the cannon versions out heh.

[Karnak]

Did the A-26 serve in the Pacific?  I understood that some were sent there for operational testing, but were rejected as unsuitable due to the poor cockpit view to the sides.  The engine nacelles actually blocked the ability to look straight left and right, which wasn't acceptable for formation flying at the altitudes the A-20s were being used at.

*gasp*   Did you just call the most versatile aircraft in WWII a lowly "fighter"??? Say it isnt so!!! 


I'd beg to differ that the Mossi FB Mk IV was indeed more of an attack aircraft than any other role it could have and did perform.      

The FB.Mk VI is a fighter, though with strong attack aircraft traits.

[Butcher]

Did the A-26 serve in the Pacific?  I understood that some were sent there for operational testing, but were rejected as unsuitable due to the poor cockpit view to the sides.  The engine nacelles actually blocked the ability to look straight left and right, which wasn't acceptable for formation flying at the altitudes the A-20s were being used at.
The FB.Mk VI is a fighter, though with strong attack aircraft traits.

They did have a pretty poor showing in the Pacific early on, but it re-equip the 3rd BG sometime in the Summer of 45 in the Philippines, they were later model A-26Bs fitted with 8 guns in the nose and 8x 50s in the wings, also you are correct - they received new Clamshell canopies for improved visability.

However - question remains how much combat action did it see, this particular group did not go into full combat action before the war ended.

The 319th BG, flew Marauders in the Italy campaign, switched to the same late A-26s and arrived on Okinawa in July/45 and flew combat missions off China and Japan - however the war was ended a few weeks later.

From what I am just skimming over, the A-26 served extremely limited or no capacity in the pacific before the war ended.
One of the biggest reasons for this, George Kennedy of the 5th Airforce, had no interest in exchanging any of his aircraft out with the A-26.

[Karnak]

Oh yes, the A-26 certainly saw combat.  No questions about it being a valid addition to AH.  I just am not sure if it saw combat anywhere other than Europe.

[cactuskooler]

The 319th completed 20 missions with A-26s.  The 3rd definitely saw combat with there's too, though I don't know specific numbers.

[guncrasher]

They removed the cannon because it had a tendency to jam.



Semp

[Ack-Ack]

They removed the cannon because it had a tendency to jam.



Semp

None of the A-26s were produced with the cannon package, it was only on paper.

ack-ack

[guncrasher]

The prototype did have one, but didn't work out. That's how they started trying to figure out several combinations including 37mm.   Before sticking to mgs,  lots of them.




Semp

[dirtdart]

40-50 perks.  Why bother adding anything non-revolutionary at that price. At 50 perks you equal the plane to the 163. Seems a bit high.  I don't see a plane that is slower than a mosquito and carrying a similar armament to an a20 being perked. 

And..... It is one sexy plane.

[Ack-Ack]

40-50 perks.  Why bother adding anything non-revolutionary at that price. At 50 perks you equal the plane to the 163. Seems a bit high.  I don't see a plane that is slower than a mosquito and carrying a similar armament to an a20 being perked. 

And..... It is one sexy plane.

The A-26 can do the job of the B-26 and the A-20.  It was intended to replace both planes in the medium bombing and low level attack roles.

ack-ack

[Karnak]

40-50 perks.  Why bother adding anything non-revolutionary at that price. At 50 perks you equal the plane to the 163. Seems a bit high.  I don't see a plane that is slower than a mosquito and carrying a similar armament to an a20 being perked. 

And..... It is one sexy plane.

It will need to be perked unless you want the arena to be swamped with them and to see A-20s disappear.  I don't think it will be 50 perks, I think it will be 5 to 10 perks and be the lowest end perk bomber.