The best medium level bomber in the game

[Randy1]

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.

[DmonSlyr]

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)

[earl1937]

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.

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.

[Karnak]

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.

[Getback]

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.

[bozon]

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...

[Rob52240]

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.

[Karnak]

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.

[Rob52240]

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.

[Karnak]

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.

[DaveBB]

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.

[Karnak]

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.

[bozon]

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.

[Rob52240]

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.

[Brooke]

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.