A-20B thoughts

[Scojo]

Most sources state normal bombload of 1500lbs and a max of 2400 lbs. That's almost half of that.

 

Grt M

Thank you for not answering my question

[Lusekofte]

I like the A 20, but was hoping at some point russian should get a  level bomber . 

[Scojo]

I like the A 20, but was hoping at some point russian should get a  level bomber . 

It's my understanding that all of their medium level bombers were relegated to night raids due to their poor performance. Which level bomber would you like to see?

Edited February 15, 2017 by 71st_AH_Scojo

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Thank you for not answering my question

 

In IL-2 1946, the A-20C has this bomb loadout:

 

2 x 100lb                                         (Total 200lb / 90.7 kg)

2 x 100lb + 8 x 100lb                       (Total 1000lb/ 453.6 kg)

2 x 100lb + 8 x 100b + 2 x 100lb     (Total 1200lb / 544.3 kg)

2 x 300lb + 4 x 300lb                       (Total 1800lb/ 816.5 kg)

2 x 300lb + 4 x 300lb + 2 x 100lb     (Total  2000lb/ 907.1 kg)

2 x 500lb                                          (Total 1000lb/ 453.6 kg

2 x 500lb + 8 x 100lb                       (Total 1800lb/ 816.5kg)

2 x 500lb + 4 x 300lb                       (Total  2200lb/ 997.9kg)

2 x 500lb + 2 x 500lb                       (Total 2000lb/ 907.1kg)

1 x 1000lb                                        (Total 1000lb/ 453.6kg)

1 x 1000lb + 8 x 100lb                     (Total 1800lb/ 816.5kg)

1 x 1000lb + 4 x 300lb                     (Total 2200lb/ 997.9kg)

1 x 1000lb + 2 x 500lb                     (Total 2000lb/ 907.1kg)

 

4 x FAB-250                                    (Total 2204.6lb/ 1000kg)

1 x FAB-500 + 2 x FAB-100             (Total 1543.4lb /700kg

1 x FAB-500 + 2 x FAB-250             (Total 2204.6lb/ 1000kg)

1 x FAB-1000                                   (Total 2204.6lb /1000kg)

[Lusekofte]

It's my understanding that all of their medium level bombers were relegated to night raids due to their poor performance. Which level bomber would you like to see?

 

 

I am not after the performance, I think it is a shame we do not have the DO 17 and SB 2. I would like a DB 3 but to be honest only the PE 8 or TU 7 (same plane) really mach the Germans on bomb load and the tope I want. The TU 2 would make a huge difference

 

General characteristics

• Crew: 4
• Length: 13.80 m (45 ft 3 in)
• Wingspan: 18.86 m (61 ft 10 in)
• Height: 4.13 m (13 ft 7 in)
• Empty weight: 7,601 kg (16,757 lb)
• Loaded weight: 10,538 kg (23,232 lb)
• Max. takeoff weight: 11,768 kg (25,944 lb)
• Powerplant: 2 × Shvetsov ASh-82 radial engine, 1,380 kW (1,850 hp) each

Performance

• Maximum speed: 528 km/h ^[8] (281 kn, 325 mph)
• Range: 2,020 km (1,090 nmi, 1,260 mi)
• Service ceiling: 9,000 m (29,528 ft)
• Rate of climb: 8.2 m/s (1,610 ft/min)
• Wing loading: 220 kg/m² (45 lb/ft²)
• Power/mass: 260 W/kg (0.16 hp/lb)

Armament

• Guns:
  • 2 × 20 mm (0.79 in) fixed forward-firing ShVAK cannon in the wings
  • 3 × 7.62 mm (0.30 in) rear-firing ShKAS machine guns (later replaced by 12.7 mm (0.50 in) Berezin UB machine guns) in the canopy, dorsal and ventral hatches.
• Bombs: 1,500 kg (3,300 lb) internally and 2,270 kg (5,000 lb) externally

 

I find multi engined general purpose aircraft on Russian side insufficient compared with what I hoped for, but I am sure that was how the Russian felt it too 

Edited February 15, 2017 by 216th_LuseKofte

[Lusekofte]

The lack of active Russian pilots may have something to do with what planes each side got, I do not mind unbalanced sides. It is quite understandable, to me it is a matter of preferences and no one should ever have to be forced into a side.

But a IL 2 3M and a A 20 is two great planes I am looking forward to test in this simulator

[Scojo]

The lack of active Russian pilots may have something to do with what planes each side got

How so?

[Dutchvdm]

Thank you for not answering my question

You're welcome

[ShamrockOneFive]

I am not after the performance, I think it is a shame we do not have the DO 17 and SB 2. I would like a DB 3 but to be honest only the PE 8 or TU 7 (same plane) really mach the Germans on bomb load and the tope I want. The TU 2 would make a huge difference

 

General characteristics

• Crew: 4
• Length: 13.80 m (45 ft 3 in)
• Wingspan: 18.86 m (61 ft 10 in)
• Height: 4.13 m (13 ft 7 in)
• Empty weight: 7,601 kg (16,757 lb)
• Loaded weight: 10,538 kg (23,232 lb)
• Max. takeoff weight: 11,768 kg (25,944 lb)
• Powerplant: 2 × Shvetsov ASh-82 radial engine, 1,380 kW (1,850 hp) each

Performance

• Maximum speed: 528 km/h ^[8] (281 kn, 325 mph)
• Range: 2,020 km (1,090 nmi, 1,260 mi)
• Service ceiling: 9,000 m (29,528 ft)
• Rate of climb: 8.2 m/s (1,610 ft/min)
• Wing loading: 220 kg/m² (45 lb/ft²)
• Power/mass: 260 W/kg (0.16 hp/lb)

Armament

• Guns:
  • 2 × 20 mm (0.79 in) fixed forward-firing ShVAK cannon in the wings
  • 3 × 7.62 mm (0.30 in) rear-firing ShKAS machine guns (later replaced by 12.7 mm (0.50 in) Berezin UB machine guns) in the canopy, dorsal and ventral hatches.
• Bombs: 1,500 kg (3,300 lb) internally and 2,270 kg (5,000 lb) externally

 

I find multi engined general purpose aircraft on Russian side insufficient compared with what I hoped for, but I am sure that was how the Russian felt it too 

 

The Russians didn't place as much of a premium on medium or heavy bombers as the Western Allies did mostly because the VVS was seen as a force that supplemented the army in front line operations. The long range bomber groups were fairly small in number compared to the rest of the force. That said... I'd love to see a Tu-2 or an IL-4 added to the series. I wouldn't be upset with the SB-2 as well!

 

I'm sure the reason we got the Pe-2 Series Series 35 was because it was fairly easy for the team to turn that model around versus building a new bomber. Bombers are by far the biggest suck on development time. It didn't hurt that the early Pe-2 was a solid performer and heavily used during the battle.

 

The lack of active Russian pilots may have something to do with what planes each side got, I do not mind unbalanced sides. It is quite understandable, to me it is a matter of preferences and no one should ever have to be forced into a side.

But a IL 2 3M and a A 20 is two great planes I am looking forward to test in this simulator

 

We're getting the IL-2M in BoK listed as IL-2 Model 1943. The IL-2 Type 3M came later on (it has the slightly swept back wings). Can't wait for the A-20 either! I spent a ton of time flying the A-20 in IL-2 1946 both the G and C versions.

[Y29.Layin_Scunion]

General characteristics

• Powerplant: 2 × Shvetsov ASh-82 radial engine, 1,380 kW (1,850 hp) each

A tidbit if anyone is interested:

 

Arkadiy Shvetsov developed the ASh-82 for the Tu-2 and Su-2.  When those projects were cancelled/discontinued til later, Lavochkin was in the process of looking for an engine to improve the LaGG-3.

 

Coincidentally the engine found the plane or vice versa(however you'd like to look at it).  This led to the LaGG-3 M-82, LaGG-5 and the eventually renamed/recognized La-5.

[Tuesday]

Really looking forward to flying the A20...thinking I'm not so much looking forward to flying against it.

 

This plane alone would be the reason I'd buy a hypothetical gunner-only demo of the game for some friends.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

The Russians didn't place as much of a premium on medium or heavy bombers as the Western Allies did mostly because the VVS was seen as a force that supplemented the army in front line operations. The long range bomber groups were fairly small in number compared to the rest of the force. That said... I'd love to see a Tu-2 or an IL-4 added to the series. I wouldn't be upset with the SB-2 as well!

Tu-2 is very unlikely since it served in low quantity for almost exclusively reconissence missions up until 1944 when the VVS ordered it into full production. Infact it's main service life was after WW2 and in the Korean war.

 

SB-2s are more suitable for pre Moscow scenarios since many of them were destroyed on the ground and in the early raids against Germany. Would definetly be fun but as a bomber inferiour to the Peshka.

 

Not sure about the IL-4's deployment but it also didn't serve in high quanteties due to teething problems with the initial design (when the issues were solved in 1944 the aircraft was already seen as obsolete). It's still a nice aircraft to have although not as capeable as german bombers at the time.

 

As you said, the soviet bomber program was more focused on long range bombing and was reduced to a minimum after suffering high losses in the early war stages. That's one reason why things just can't balance out equally well on both sides.

[Gambit21]

My A-20B thoughts are - I wish it was as G.

History says it's a B however - and that will be plenty fun. I can imagine flying it through the valleys of the Kuban already - I might have to make a campaign for it.

 

I'm going to lament the absence of those guns though - 'sigh'

 

(Sorry just reread the entire thread and realized I've made the G comment several times a while back - I'd forgotten. Makes it look like I'm harping on it. Looking forward to the A-20 and will make a rippin campaign for it)

Edited February 16, 2017 by Gambit21

[=38=Tatarenko]

I can only imagine the joy of German AA gunners and night fighters at the sight of this monster.

 

No, the Turbinlite was designed for use over the UK - the Boston would illuminate a German night bomber like the He-111 and then any accompanying Hurricane would move in and attack it out of the darkness. That was the theory but IIRC there were zero Turbinlite-assisted kills.

Edited February 16, 2017 by =38=Tatarenko

[Lusekofte]

The Russians didn't place as much of a premium on medium or heavy bombers as the Western Allies did mostly because the VVS was seen as a force that supplemented the army in front line operations. The long range bomber groups were fairly small in number compared to the rest of the force. That said... I'd love to see a Tu-2 or an IL-4 added to the series. I wouldn't be upset with the SB-2 as well!

 

Again I know all this, and this is why I disagree that a combat flight sim should only be seen historical. I think it is about time we consider a little gameplay also. If not you can find yourself flying axis side 30 agains 3 prime time Europe, wait that did happened.

 

When I see German bomber pilots gain 120 ground kills on 1 sortie and I cannot top 45 on a well placed 2x500 kg bombs, no matter how, you can not take out a target if you are not 4 PE 2 during 3 hour mission. 

I am not talking about history, I am just saying I want a plane that did exist in 41-42 dedicated for levelbombing and can carry a historical bomb load a bit heavier than a ground attack or a dive bomber can. I am not asking to add unhistorical bomb loads or anachronism  I am not asking for more than we already got in the sim. like JU 87 G1 and a field modded IL 2 with 37 mm , witch did not even exist or ever used. I am saying we bend the history for gameplay from the start and suddenly we can not? 

I am not demanding it, but to me it is frustrating that multi engined planes pop up every second month on axis side while well we got 2 of the same type

Edited February 16, 2017 by 216th_LuseKofte

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Player numbers is a weak argument when it's well known that most players fly fighters in MP (VVS got plenty of them). Also we should not forget devs already compromised historical accurancy for gameplay by introducing top of the line models for some russian fighters while historically it should be a mix of many worse performing aircraft.

 

If we drop historical accurancy for gameplay entirely we'll end up with random "cool" aircraft mashed up in a scenario that remotely represents historical battles. I know a title that's heavily ctriticised for pricisely doing that.

Fact is devs did well to include the Peshka because it historically was present in both battles and used in great numbers. The A-20 too will be unique and a complement to the VVS ground attack arm.

 

That being said I'd enjoy flying a IL-4 or Yer-2 in an appropiate scenario.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Again I know all this, and this is why I disagree that a combat flight sim should only be seen historical. I think it is about time we consider a little gameplay also. If not you can find yourself flying axis side 30 agains 3 prime time Europe, wait that did happened.

 

When I see German bomber pilots gain 120 ground kills on 1 sortie and I cannot top 45 on a well placed 2x500 kg bombs, no matter how, you can not take out a target if you are not 4 PE 2 during 3 hour mission. 

I am not talking about history, I am just saying I want a plane that did exist in 41-42 dedicated for levelbombing and can carry a historical bomb load a bit heavier than a ground attack or a dive bomber can. I am not asking to add unhistorical bomb loads or anachronism  I am not asking for more than we already got in the sim. like JU 87 G1 and a field modded IL 2 with 37 mm , witch did not even exist or ever used. I am saying we bend the history for gameplay from the start and suddenly we can not? 

I am not demanding it, but to me it is frustrating that multi engined planes pop up every second month on axis side while well we got 2 of the same type

 

I usually come from the history side first and see the gameplay second but I can certainly respect wanting to come from the other direction too. Fair enough!

 

The biggest problem then is really just of development time and resources and of course that bombers are more difficult to do than other aircraft because of their complexity and numbers of positions. I know that been discussed to death over the years but its still very much relevant. Again, I totally understand why when Battle of Moscow was picked that they didn't go for an IL-4 instead of another Pe-2. It was necessary to keep the project on track by largely reusing an already existing model.

 

I'm hoping that the A-20B will help fill the niche a bit. From the developer shots today I count a loadout with 12 bombs (I think they are 100kg). Hopefully it can carry a good number of larger bombs to compete with the Luftwaffe a bit more closely. I'd love an IL-4 as I said... a trio of 500kg bombs and 12x100kg internally as my preferred devastating loadout in the original IL-2. The SB-2 wouldn't do much good for scoring large numbers of kills as it's bombload was scarcely better than most fighters. Perhaps when we go back to the East Front after the Pacific we'll see the Tu-2 or Tu-2S. I have been itching to fly that bomber since I saw the AI version in IL-2 Forgotten Battles.

[Dutchvdm]

Again I know all this, and this is why I disagree that a combat flight sim should only be seen historical. I think it is about time we consider a little gameplay also. If not you can find yourself flying axis side 30 agains 3 prime time Europe, wait that did happened.

 

When I see German bomber pilots gain 120 ground kills on 1 sortie and I cannot top 45 on a well placed 2x500 kg bombs, no matter how, you can not take out a target if you are not 4 PE 2 during 3 hour mission. 

I am not talking about history, I am just saying I want a plane that did exist in 41-42 dedicated for levelbombing and can carry a historical bomb load a bit heavier than a ground attack or a dive bomber can. I am not asking to add unhistorical bomb loads or anachronism  I am not asking for more than we already got in the sim. like JU 87 G1 and a field modded IL 2 with 37 mm , witch did not even exist or ever used. I am saying we bend the history for gameplay from the start and suddenly we can not? 

I am not demanding it, but to me it is frustrating that multi engined planes pop up every second month on axis side while well we got 2 of the same type

 

When you look at it that way maybe the B-25 was a better option? I can't imagine that the SB-2 would do the trick. It's bombload is even less than that of the Pe-2.

 

Grt M

[=38=Tatarenko]

I like the A 20, but was hoping at some point russian should get a  level bomber . 

 

The A-20 is a level bomber. But it was also used for other things.

 

​Here's something interesting - the most decorated unit (HSU's) in the Soviet Air Forces flew the A-20.

 

It was 1 GMTAP of the KBF (1st Mine Torpedo Air Regt of the Baltic Fleet Air Force).

[Scojo]

Again I know all this, and this is why I disagree that a combat flight sim should only be seen historical.

It can be seen as historical and still have all of those bombers  you want. There were used at some point, so they should be in the game. I don't think anyone would disagree with you on them being in the game. The difficulty comes in with the fact that the Developers has to pick which ones to do first.

 

Just for the record, I'm all for having a medium VVS bomber put in even if it wasn't used that much in the war. Not used much =/= Not used, so we should have one for those of us that love bombers

Also we should not forget devs already compromised historical accurancy for gameplay by introducing top of the line models for some russian fighters while historically it should be a mix of many worse performing aircraft.

If the plane flew in the war at any point, it can be in the Sim. They have a good variety of different performing aircraft that were at BoX. The mix of those aircraft are not their concern. That's a mission maker's concern. The devs make the "tools" by which mission makers can use to try to make things "historical"

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

I was talking about the Lagg-3 and Yak in particular (PF engine models were less numerous than the PA models until the end of the battle). If historical accurancy was to be kept srictly by dves things would turn out way worse for the VVS ingame.

If the plane flew in the war at any point, it can be in the Sim.

True and false at the same time. As I said it depends on the importance and role of these aircraft in the battle. As an example, the VVS used ~ 10 Yer-2 heavy bombers for low altitude troop strafing durign the battle of Moscow with high casualties. Does this justify the aircraft to be included in BoM as a standard bomber? In my opinion, no, because it would be used in a different role than historically intendet and be deployed in unrepresentative numbers changing the balance of the battle.

Edited February 17, 2017 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[Scojo]

True and false at the same time. As I said it depends on the importance and role of these aircraft in the battle. As an example, the VVS used ~ 10 Yer-2 heavy bombers for low altitude troop strafing durign the battle of Moscow with high casualties. Does this legit this aircraft to be included in BoM as a standard bomber? In my opinion, no, because it would be used in a different role than historically and be deployed in unrepresentative numbers changing the way the battle was actually going.

If the bomber was used in the war, it can be in the game. Period.

 

If that bomber was only used as low altitude strafing, then that's up to the mission makers and pilots to recreate.

 

You shouldn't keep an aircraft out of the game ONLY because people MIGHT use it in a way that it wasn't historically used. As I said, that part of the game being historically accurate is up to the mission makers and the players because the devs can't control that.

That's just as absurd as saying no one is allowed to buy a bat because some people use it for violence instead of baseball

[BlitzPig_EL]

The A-20 is a level bomber. But it was also used for other things.

 

 

You beat me to it sir.  The A-20 was an excellent multi-role aircraft, it worked well in just about every iteration of it's development, well, except for that silly search light thing.

 

Light level bomber... Check.

 

Ground attack/low level interdiction... Check.

 

Anti shipping... Check.

 

Nightfighter (as the P70)... Check.

 

It was absolutely the best light bomber deployed in the South West Pacific, and General Kenny used it to great effect against the Japanese.

 

Will it be a game changer for the VVS in the sim?   I don't know.  But, it will be a very good and useful arrow in the quiver.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

That's just as absurd as saying no one is allowed to buy a bat because some people use it for violence instead of baseball

No. It's like including the B-17 in Midway and dropping the Dauntless because first one is the cooler aircraft and otherwise some people might complain about a lack of heavy bombers on US side.

 

I also want to see all of those aircraft but that doesn't change the devs handle their policy.

[Scojo]

No. It's like including the B-17 in Midway and dropping the Dauntless because first one is the cooler aircraft and otherwise some people might complain about a lack of heavy bombers on US side.

 

I also want to see all of those aircraft but that doesn't change the devs handle their policy.

We're not talking putting it in right now, at least I'm not.

 

I understand that the devs have to pick and choose what comes in or what comes in first, but that's not the point I was making an argument against.

 

I agree with you on the B-17 - dauntless example. However in the Russian front case, we have enough options in all of the aircraft "classes" that I think including one in a new class is ok

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Player numbers is a weak argument when it's well known that most players fly fighters in MP (VVS got plenty of them). Also we should not forget devs already compromised historical accurancy for gameplay by introducing top of the line models for some russian fighters while historically it should be a mix of many worse performing aircraft.

 

With the BoM I-16, P-40 and MiG-3 they can already be at Stalingrad to reflect some of that... but most of the people still choses the Yak-1 PF for example. Hopefully the devs have some time in the future to model the P/PA engines like they did with the F in the La-5, but with the PF available I don't think there will be much people playing them... These early engine versions would be used by the players to complete the 1941 scenario most of the time I think, rather than an addition to the mid-1942 scenario. Having for BoS only M-105P/PA LaGG and Yak isn't realistic either, and that would be the only way to make the players play those in numbers... having nothing better available.

 

It would be like having a late war scenario and everyone flying 109 K-4 or G-10 instead of the G-6 and G-14. Or in late Pacific War for example everybody in N1Ks and Ki-84s instead of A6M5s/ Ki-61 /Ki-43-II mix

 

I guess to have a lineup correctly represented it would take a very well thought server system, in which different squadrons are modelled and ppl playing accept to have X plane because that's the plane his/her squadron had back then. It's not an easy task imo.

Edited February 17, 2017 by SuperEtendard

[Scojo]

I guess to have a lineup correctly represented it would take a very well thought server system, in which different squadrons are modelled and ppl playing accept to have X plane because that's the plane his/her squadron had back then. It's not an easy task imo.

Like I said, the devs can't control that, and shouldn't try to given the effort it would take on their part.

 

That's up to the mission makers and players.

[ShamrockOneFive]

You beat me to it sir.  The A-20 was an excellent multi-role aircraft, it worked well in just about every iteration of it's development, well, except for that silly search light thing.

 

Light level bomber... Check.

 

Ground attack/low level interdiction... Check.

 

Anti shipping... Check.

 

Nightfighter (as the P70)... Check.

 

It was absolutely the best light bomber deployed in the South West Pacific, and General Kenny used it to great effect against the Japanese.

 

Will it be a game changer for the VVS in the sim?   I don't know.  But, it will be a very good and useful arrow in the quiver.

 

Well said! The many reasons why I'm so excited to see the A-20 again is because of all of those things that it can do. It'll be a lot of fun!

[PatrickAWlson]

I haven't been able to find evidence either way. I sure hope that the A-20B model has torpedo carrying capabilities... this is the ideal place to have it. The Germans will likely have three aircraft capable of torpedo carrying capability - the Russians should have at least one.

 

Coming from complete ignorance - how often were torpedoes really used in the east?  

[LukeFF]

Coming from complete ignorance - how often were torpedoes really used in the east?  

 

They were used by both sides in both the Baltic and Black Sea regions and by the Germans against the Lend-Lease convoys sailing to Murmansk.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Coming from complete ignorance - how often were torpedoes really used in the east?  

 

As Luke says... a fair bit by both sides.

 

The message you quoted from me has also been answered. The A-20B version did not carry torpedoes but it did use bombs to attack ships (as did the Pe-2). We'd need an A-20C for torpedoes... and a lightly modified Ju88 or He111 for carrying torpedoes on those types.

 

Apparently we won't get aerial torpedoes added to the series until Battle of Midway - where you can pretty much expect them!

[Brano]

We will get soviet modification of A-20B:

Bomb bay 16x100kg

Underwing fittings 4x100kg

Total 2000kg

Confirmed by Viks on russian forum

 

Bit of history of soviet modifications I put together from sources available to me.For those interested.

 

Original US DB-7 had only 4 fittings inside bomb bay greatly reducing bombload when smaller bombs or mix were to be fitted. Usage of domestic bombs was also problematic.

 

Soviet Zavod 43 came with a technical solution approved by Chief Engineer of VVS 20.7.1942. This was for DB-7b/c and A-20C variants delivered as first to USSR.

 

List of changes:

1. Installation of bomb boxes KD-2-439 into bomb bay = 2x front and 2x rear part of it. Each bomb box for 4x100kg bombs.

2. Electrical bomb release trigger ESBR-3p

3. Bombsight OPB-1 (daylight) and NKPB-4 (night) which replaced rather primitive original Vimperis D-8 type.

 

In autumn 1942 a larger volume of A-20Bs has been released by US for land-lease purposes. The reason was simple. Same as earlier models,also these were found not fit for combat duties due to lack of armor protection and selfsealing fuel tanks. 2/3rds (665) were shipped to USSR,the rest was kept in US for training purposes .

 

A-20B soviet modification:

1. Installation of domestic bomb boxes with Der-21 bomb fittings into bomb bay for 16xFAB100kg bombs

2. Installation of outer wing bomb fittings Der-19p for bombs up to 250kg

3. Electrical bomb release trigger ESBR-6

4. Bombsights OPB-1r and NKPB-7

 

Thanks to Der-21 bomb boxes A-20B could carry large spectrum of other specialised bombs like Containers KMB-Pe-2 with small explosive bombs AO-2,5 ,AO-10,AO-25, incendiary ZAB-2,5

 

For outer wing fittings Der-19p it was possible to install VAP-250 chemical dispensers (white phosphorus)

 

Max load of bombs was set to 2000kg while taking off from concrete runways. For operations from field conditions,the bombload was usually smaller (depending on airfield conditions)

 

Concerning UTK-1 gunner turret,it could be installed on few machines in time of Kuban battle (with original Browning 12.7,not UBT) but there is only one source available to me. It was request of VVS deputy commander G.A.Vorozheykin to NKAP to modify urgently 54 A-20Bs dated 30.10.1942. No proof it has been also carried out. Bostons were usually put into action immediately after arrival and there was little time to send them for extensive modifications. That was possible only in late 1943,when US started to deliver A-20Gs,which fulfilled USSR requests much better then previous models.

 

And not to forget,soviet A-20Bs had additional 4th crew member - rear low gunner.Planes were fitted with additional seat,oxygen connection and intercom for him allready in Tulsa,USA . Tulsa served as "mod shop" for Bostons heading to USSR were all changes requested by soviet side were installed. Under supervision of soviet officials,who also made final inspection.

[Dutchvdm]

Wow Brano,

 

Good info! Thnx

 

Why could the soviet version carry a heavier bombload? Just a matter of hardpoints and space?

 

Grt M

[Brano]

Its more about soviets considering US bombload limits rather "too conservative".

And first DB-7s (Boston III) had limitations of only 4 bomb fittings inside bombay which at the end limited your bombload to max 4x227/250kg. If soviet commander needed 100kg FAB bombs for the mission,well,only 4 could be fitted inside bringing your max load down by half.

Thats why soviets installed their domestic systems increasing the bombload .And more importantly,it gave more flexibility to the bomb mix the plane could carry.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Brano, that's great information!

 

Two questions I have:

 

1) What about larger bombload options? What were the Russians able to fit into the bay? Could heavier bombs be carried out on the wings or just 100kg?

 

2) The A-20Bs without armor were deemed unsuitable... Did the Russians install any armor domestically?

[Brano]

For A20B

1. Bomb bay only FAB100 bombs (16x)

Outer wing mounts (4x) max FAB250 bombs

2. It had some armor protection from factory but it was considered subpar acc. US standarts in 1942 for attack cathegory. For soviets it was light tactical bomber. They did some improvements on armor in Zavod nr.81. I dont have more details on that. They also modified the plane for winter usage by adding removable engine covers with adjustable jalousies(simmilar like on ishaks) manufactured by Zavod nr.2

[ShamrockOneFive]

Thanks Brano! Interesting stuff!

[Lusekofte]

When you look at it that way maybe the B-25 was a better option? I can't imagine that the SB-2 would do the trick. It's bombload is even less than that of the Pe-2.

 

Most relevant plane would be TU 2 a slight increase in bomb load. For me a SB 2 would do just fine. I want a dedicated level bomber. Not a game winner. And All craft I wish for is historical, but of course the luftwaffeguys are more than happy arguing against any Russian side multiengine plane. Because they will get lesser . Still they are more than happy if effects on planes they self fly get a more modern power boost.

Selective historical double moral.

 

I personally realised that this sim got about nothing to offer to me personally, I have tried to influence its development . But as 9 of 10 fly luftwaffe in servers they also totally rule the forum. And there is absolutely no way in hell a minority like Russian Bomber simmers ever got a saying.

 

I am off these forum debates 

Edited February 18, 2017 by 216th_LuseKofte

[ShamrockOneFive]

Most relevant plane would be TU 2 a slight increase in bomb load. For me a SB 2 would do just fine. I want a dedicated level bomber. Not a game winner. And All craft I wish for is historical, but of course the luftwaffeguys are more than happy arguing against any Russian side multiengine plane. Because they will get lesser . Still they are more than happy if effects on planes they self fly get a more modern power boost.

Selective historical double moral.

 

I personally realised that this sim got about nothing to offer to me personally, I have tried to influence its development . But as 9 of 10 fly luftwaffe in servers they also totally rule the forum. And there is absolutely no way in hell a minority like Russian Bomber simmers ever got a saying.

 

I am off these forum debates 

 

You said the following:

 

 

 

When I see German bomber pilots gain 120 ground kills on 1 sortie and I cannot top 45 on a well placed 2x500 kg bombs, no matter how, you can not take out a target if you are not 4 PE 2 during 3 hour mission. 

 

Alright... fair enough. A medium bomber with a large bomb capacity seems good. So the IL-4, B-25, and Tu-2 are all good historical options depending on the specific battle. But then you're saying that you want a dedicated level bomber, not a game winner. With the SB-2 able to carry about half of the Pe-2s bombload at maxium capacity that doesn't compute with the statement I just quoted from you. Another thing that doesn't compute is level bombers: Both the Pe-2 and the A-20B are level bombers in the same way that the Ju88 is a level bomber. If being capable of dive bombing or flying low level attack precluded their effectiveness as level bombers then that would be a point to make... but it doesn't.

 

There is no 9/10 Luftwaffe fliers agenda stopping other bombers from being added. No-one is arguing against you.

 

The only real issue is resources for the team and time spent building these aircraft. They can only afford the time and resources for one unique multi-station bomber per follow up product. Simple as that. I don't see you raising a stink because the He111H-16 is a rehash of the H-6.

Edited February 19, 2017 by ShamrockOneFive

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Most relevant plane would be TU 2 a slight increase in bomb load. For me a SB 2 would do just fine. I want a dedicated level bomber. Not a game winner. And All craft I wish for is historical, but of course the luftwaffeguys are more than happy arguing against any Russian side multiengine plane. Because they will get lesser . Still they are more than happy if effects on planes they self fly get a more modern power boost.

Selective historical double moral.

 

I personally realised that this sim got about nothing to offer to me personally, I have tried to influence its development . But as 9 of 10 fly luftwaffe in servers they also totally rule the forum. And there is absolutely no way in hell a minority like Russian Bomber simmers ever got a saying.

 

I am off these forum debates 

Well, we are Discussing the possibility of becoming a more Neutral Squadron anyways and I certainy do enjoy both sides pretty much 50/50, and I think most of my Mates do as well.

The biggest Problem for us I think is the Lack of a Bomber with a Proper Bombload. And an A-20B with 2 tons would certainly attract me back into flying Russians a lot more.