Jump to content
Riderocket

A-20B thoughts

Recommended Posts

The Pe-2 ... s a better dive bomber than both the Ju-88 and Ju-87

What makes you say that the Pe-2 is a "better" divebomber than the Ju-87? In the game? or RL?

 

In real life, the Ju-87 could be dived vertically keeping airspeed constant. Almost none of the "dive bombers" could do that. The Ju-88 not at all like this. It does have dive brakes, but it cannot be trimmed into a vertical dive such as you could trim it into cruise flight. So, is the Peshka even more controllable in a 90° dive than the Stuka

Edited by ZachariasX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both in game and in real life. I'm not really talking about controlability here though but the airframe's overall ability to accomplish a mission.

 

The Pe-2, in game and in real life, carries an adequate bomb load for diving attacks and is capable of delivering this ordnance by diving at a satisfactory angle and dropping its bombs from most altitudes with good effect. What sets it apart from the Ju-87 is that before and after the dive it's not a sitting duck lacking in speed, durability and defensive armament. The Peshka has enough power and endurance to dart home at low altitude and high speed, to quickly climb back to the escort fighter's altitude without becoming almost stationary, and to successfully fend off fighters with its armament and manoeuvres when in skilled hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Ju88s equipped with the Stuvi were, even with the more shallow dive angle, at least as effective as the Pe2s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bah! It's all about down low/mast level bombing with that bird.

 

I've finished building the first mission of the A-20 scripted campaign, starting mission 2 tomorrow.

You guys will be happy (unless you expect level bombing) in which case you'll have to look elsewhere for your

A-20 fix. Around here we keep it in the weeds.

Nice! That's exactly the kind of flying i like. Looking forward to playing your campaign!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

In real life, the Ju-87 could be dived vertically keeping airspeed constant. 

 

...

 

Can you explain this a bit more? How does diving vertically vs e.g. 60 degrees keep airspeed any more constant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you explain this a bit more? How does diving vertically vs e.g. 60 degrees keep airspeed any more constant?

 

I was paraphrasing Eric Brown here about flying the Ju-87. It is of note that his remarks were made in context of the pure flying qualities, not about abilities that incluse survivability in adverse conditions such as Lucas apperas to refer here:

 

What sets it apart from the Ju-87 is that before and after the dive it's not a sitting duck lacking in speed, durability and defensive armament.

 

What Eric Brown was impressed about the Ju-87 is that once you start the dive in the Ju-87, you can make it "stand on the nose", the aircraft really pointing 90° downwards while you thruout the dive remain within good maneuvering speed and in full control of the aircraft.

 

I quote Eric Brown: "In fact, I have rarely seen a specialist dive bomber put over 70 degrees in a dive, but the Ju 87 was a genuine 90 degrees screamer! For some indefinable reason, the Ju 87D felt right standing on its nose and the accelleration to 540 km/h was reached in about 1370m. Speed thereafter crept slowly up to the absolute permitted limit of 600 km/h so that the feeling of being on a runaway roller-coaster experienced with most other dive bombers was missing." (Wings of the Luftwaffe, p. 180)

 

Most other planes, especially "fast" ones that get dive brakes tacked to their wings, cannot do dives that in such fashion. Although the dive brakes help you not exceed a speed where you are unable to priceisely control the aircraft, you tipically would do a steeper glide bomb attack.  Not going down 90° helps you with the pull out as well, especially since you're likely to go rather fast.

 

Just diving toward a target and releasing your bomb is not really "dive bombing" in essence. Otherwise the Spitfire would be a dive bomber. They bombed a lot in a diving manner and hit very little. Not sure what was the accuracy of the Peshka. But with the Stuka, you could line up with your target flying the bomb trajectory and actually hit the target,

 

Diving at a shallower angle than 90 degrees requires you to aim with some lead as the bomb falls short of the line of sight in your aircraft. The shallower the angle, the more you need to correct. For the Spitfire it was something like "Dive down as fast as you can and if you're still alive near the target pull back as much as you can, and when the target disapears under your nose count to five and release the bomb".

 

When you go down 90 degrees, you can align your dive exactly to your target and release the bomb. this way, (the) pilot(s) who can pick up handkerchiefs from the ground using their aircrafts wingtips could place bombs exactly where they wanted it. And then thought divebombing to be even better than sliced bread. The rest had to deal with a slow aircraft in all other flight regimes and could scream "SCHPITFAAIIIAAAA!!!". But they still could hit their target.

 

But when it comes to "what is a good divebomber?" then I would take that as a function of a planes probablity to bring a tonnage of bombs on target (or reasonably close). This target is usually a fortified one where pinpoint precision matters. It is not like "strafing a column of vehicles" where shallow attack angles are useful and when attacking in line of the column, lead aim for bombs is not so critical anymore. So I seriously doubt you can deliver bombs as precise for pinpoint targets in the Peshka as in the Ju 87 by a diving attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now that I know how much the A-20 can carry, what types of bomb-loads will we be able to choose from? I've read that it can carry 16 bombs in the internal bombay but what is the size of those bombs? 50lbs, 100lbs?

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One loadout confirmed was 12xFAB-100 stored internally with an additional 4xFAB-100 stored on the wings. Allegedly those wing hardpoints can cary FAB-250s as well so potentially you could have 4xFAB250 internal and 2xFAB250 on the wings. Or even 1xFAB500, 2xFAB250 and again 2xFAB250. It can carry a pretty serious loadout!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I would say that the JU87 is the best dive bomber ever made if you are looking at accurate bomb delivery but at a serious disadvantage when it meets fighters.  On the other hand, if you read Rudels 'Stuka Pilot' autobiography then he seemed to treat Russian fighters as a minor inconvenience to be dodged as he delivered his bombs and went home. He was even happy to land and squeeze a downed pilot & gunner into his cockpit under the noses of the Russian fighters on more than one occasion.

 

In terms of pure effectiveness versus survivability I would say the JU88 is an outstanding plane as it was extremely fast and could level bomb and also dive bomb effectively as well as act as a heavy fighter.  I am a almost exclusively Allied pilot in all my games but I tried the JU88 for a month in CLoD and it felt like I was cheating. I could just fly past defending fighters at high speed, drop my bombs pretty accurately from a shallow dive at a speed where AA could not hit me then continue home still flying faster than a hurricane but not a diving Spit.  Even a chasing spit would end up on my six though so vulnerable to the rear gunner.

 

I am really looking forward to the A20 but I must admit I am beginning to doubt its survivability when used at low level against strongly defended targets like airfields and tank bases.  It is quite risky attacking these targets in a fighter so I am not sure how well a much larger less agile A20 would do.  On the other hand,at medium altitude its bombload will mean that you can probaby do a lot of damage to a tank base or airfield without having to be pinpoint accurate while staying reasonably safe from the AA.    

 

What height does level bombing become impractical due to the visibility bubble problems?  I only own BoK so have only tried level bombing in an IL-2 (as an experiment)  I found I could be accurate to within about 15 metres along my flight path from 1000m altitude but flying straight& level left me with quite a few holes in my aircraft even at 1000m and lining up accurately was difficult as it had to be done quite far out before the target became hidden under the nose.  A distance where you could see a town but not any buildings or targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Around here we keep it in the weeds.

 

 

The best way to fly. Looking forward to the campaign in that case...

 

I am really looking forward to the A20 but I must admit I am beginning to doubt its survivability when used at low level against strongly defended targets like airfields and tank bases. It is quite risky attacking these targets in a fighter so I am not sure how well a much larger less agile A20 would do.

I pretty much exclusively fly the Peshka and get fairly consistently good results with low level, treetop height bombing runs. You benefit massively from a wingman to either suppress or destroy flak, or at least drag it away from you, but you can be quite survivable from fighters by choosing your route, approaching the target from behind in a curve so you stay out of the way of any patrols and hit it as hard as you can in a single run or at most two passes, and then use the momentum gained from a shallow diving attack to zoom away in the horizontal and don't look back.

 

The Pe-2 is great for this as it's fast and can take a beating, and the series 110 with the blister turret has a reasonable chance at damaging a fighter with its wide field-of-fire and the large calibre (and the hyper-accurate VVS gunners, but that's a debate for later).

 

I have my concerns about how the A-20 will fare in the same sort of strike, the speeds are roughly equivalent but the Peshka has the edge, the A-20 is a bigger airframe so may be easier to spot and the weight of ordinance might require multiple attack passes, and the more time on target you have the lower your survivability.

 

But I'm definitely going to try it out and if it needs a minor rethink in terms of tactics, so be it. From what I hear if it, it suits my flying style.

And it'll be nice to have the cockpit instruments in mph and feet, so I'll know exactly how high above the ground and how fast I am, and won't have to constantly be converting speed and distance in my head...

 

What height does level bombing become impractical due to the visibility bubble problems?

I'm not sure as I don't have much experience with level bombing, although I have hit a few targets from 2000m and had enough time to line up and make course corrections etc before the release point.

But I'd never generally fly higher than that, I miss the safety of the treetops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One loadout confirmed was 12xFAB-100 stored internally with an additional 4xFAB-100 stored on the wings. Allegedly those wing hardpoints can cary FAB-250s as well so potentially you could have 4xFAB250 internal and 2xFAB250 on the wings. Or even 1xFAB500, 2xFAB250 and again 2xFAB250. It can carry a pretty serious loadout!

Nice, I'm just curious what loadout will equal the 2000kg (4400lbs) that it can carry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be possible for the A-20 to carry two FAB250s on each wing. That plus the loadouts that we've talked about would be 2000kg with of bombs. Not sure.

 

That'd be a hell of a fireworks show... and a very long takeoff run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that the JU87 is the best dive bomber ever made if you are looking at accurate bomb delivery but at a serious disadvantage when it meets fighters. On the other hand, if you read Rudels 'Stuka Pilot' autobiography then he seemed to treat Russian fighters as a minor inconvenience to be dodged as he delivered his bombs and went home. He was even happy to land and squeeze a downed pilot & gunner into his cockpit under the noses of the Russian fighters on more than one occasion.

But remember, Rudel was an unrepentant Nazi who helped war criminals, including Josef Mengele, escape justice. He also attempted to restore Nazism as the dominant ideaology in West Germany, and claimed that most, if not all German WWII veterans were Nazis.

 

Perhaps he is being honest about his experiences with Soviet fighters, but given his record, I would say it's likely that much of his autobiography is propaganda.

Edited by FFS_Cybermat47
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But when it comes to "what is a good divebomber?" then I would take that as a function of a planes probablity to bring a tonnage of bombs on target (or reasonably close). This target is usually a fortified one where pinpoint precision matters. It is not like "strafing a column of vehicles" where shallow attack angles are useful and when attacking in line of the column, lead aim for bombs is not so critical anymore. So I seriously doubt you can deliver bombs as precise for pinpoint targets in the Peshka as in the Ju 87 by a diving attack.

That's fair enough :) I'm going by the capability to perform the mission under battle conditions. A modern analogy is the F-35, objectively a piece of junk as a fighter compared to the F-15 but it'll get in and out alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pretty much exclusively fly the Peshka and get fairly consistently good results with low level, treetop height bombing runs. You benefit massively from a wingman to either suppress or destroy flak, or at least drag it away from you, but you can be quite survivable from fighters by choosing your route, approaching the target from behind in a curve so you stay out of the way of any patrols and hit it as hard as you can in a single run or at most two passes, and then use the momentum gained from a shallow diving attack to zoom away in the horizontal and don't look back.

 

The Pe-2 is great for this as it's fast and can take a beating, and the series 110 with the blister turret has a reasonable chance at damaging a fighter with its wide field-of-fire and the large calibre (and the hyper-accurate VVS gunners, but that's a debate for later).

 

I have my concerns about how the A-20 will fare in the same sort of strike, the speeds are roughly equivalent but the Peshka has the edge, the A-20 is a bigger airframe so may be easier to spot and the weight of ordinance might require multiple attack passes, and the more time on target you have the lower your survivability.

 

 

I only have the IL-2 so tend to approach at 700-1000m then dive in curving and occasionally levelling to make a shallow attack then egress at10ft using the accumulated speed to get behind the nearest trees but I still usually take damage and lose the odd rear gunner :-)   Yesterday I got away with two passes on a fully functioning Tank Base and took out the fuel & ammo but I would not have been able to take out any tanks with those bombs. I need to come in at a steeper angle to hit a tank directly and just could not get the accuracy while dodging 10 guns!   I don't usually attack Tank Base AA with an IL-2 but a depot with just three guns is doable, especially with the 37 mm gun.   Without AA then the 37mm is OK for P38s and can do a PzIII if I am accurate but I have yet to destroy a PzIV with guns alone.

 

My squad used to enjoy low level Blenheim raids on airfields in CLoD & I  think that when the A20 comes out we will probably try low-level here but only when we have at least three A20s plus fighters to distract the guns.  I think the AA is worse in Box than in CLoD or should I say the AA in the Finnish Server is worse than in the average server in CLoD.

Edited by 56RAF_Roblex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not wrong about AA in the Finnish server...

I have no practical experience of CLoD so can't compare, but I usually fly in BoX with a wingman and we can do alright, the trick ive found is approaching from different angles so the flak can't concentrate on either of you.

At the height you make your initial run at you don't need to worry about the heavy stuff, but the 37mms are murder.

So the only time you should be flying straight is for the few seconds before release.

 

One thing though, if you're using your accumulated speed to escape, don't run out in a straight line as that's when you're the easiest to hit, moving directly away from the guns. So still jink and weave until you're confident you're out of range, or better - can put some terrain between you and them.

 

I have practiced a fair bit with the Pe-2 though so can be reasonably sure when to drop at a given speed and altitude to hit something. The less you need to keep going back the better you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AA set to "low" (AI setting) equates to what probably should be "Ace"

Set it to ace, or even high - or 'normal' for that matter and forget it.

Radar guided accuracy. I set it to 'low' in my missions and even then you have to respect it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think low aa setting is ok but anything higher and you may as well be up against a modern Pansir aa system.  On the Finnish server, aa can be frustating as there are not enough players to do coordinated ground strikes with.  TAW is better in this regard.

 

I do fond though, flying the Pe in low level bombing, even with 250kg bombs, you have to be fairly accurate when hitting tanks and fortifications. I usually drop them in pairs over fortifications and singly over a line of tanks.

 

Saturation bombing low level with the A20. That will be interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok good stuff. numbers are numbers but I find it easier to use feet/mph than I do m/kmph for some reason!!

After a while all the numbers will make sense...  Also add on Knots into the mix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny, born into imperial system but transitioned to metric and find metric in sim easier to grasp.

 

Same with guages, Cyrillic not that hard to learn as are guages from Russian or German.  Easier than flying with crud controlls )).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Perhaps he is being honest about his experiences with Soviet fighters, but given his record, I would say it's likely that much of his autobiography is propaganda.

 

Being able to survive the conflict on the eastern front for four years  flying a Stuka and  and live to write his autobiography leads me to believe his version of events, rather than label it as propaganda.  Whether you agree or not with his political beliefs is another matter in question, but there is no dispute that he had some great piloting skills and some big b@lls to fly that "coffin" for so long and out live the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being able to survive the conflict on the eastern front for four years flying a Stuka and and live to write his autobiography leads me to believe his version of events, rather than label it as propaganda. Whether you agree or not with his political beliefs is another matter in question, but there is no dispute that he had some great piloting skills and some big b@lls to fly that "coffin" for so long and out live the war.

Maybe all is true about his pilot talent, but he was know as one of war time national system propagator after the war in the Argentyna ,he helped escape some not nice individuals. Nobody to be proud off or take as example. The book is full of propaganda (not just my opinion) and trying to make all that men who fight for Adolf with brute Bolsheviks victims of war.

Edited by 307_Tomcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nazis were bad...

 

Stalin was bad...

 

We fly a fight simulator, for fun, air to air combat, hopefully without ideology of the past and which underlies these conflicts.

Edited by Iceworm
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Took the Ju88 for a spin on the Finnish server. Nice payload it carried and quite effective at low level dive bombing.

 

The cockpit though and that mg in the way of ones view to the left. Not so easy to navigate out of in my limited experience. Might take some getting used to but I love the payload. )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive been living in the US for 7 yrs and i can barely do farenheit, miles or pounds :)

Where in the States JM?.............. your server ping to me is zero...................  you next door?

 

Hoss

Edited by 1./JG54_Hoss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where in the States JM?.............. your server ping to me is zero...................  you next door?

 

Hoss

 

 

Yes it's me, the noisy neighbor!

 

I'm near Boston.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for folks who might know: the A-20B cockpit images released show a reflector gunsight yet I recall that the A-20C in IL-2: 1946 (and introduced in Pacific Fighters) had a ring and bead gunsight.

 

I've done a cursory search but these details are often hard to find... was the reflector gunsight typical of the A-20B in the configuration ordered by the USAAF. Did the Russians modify the reflector sight after receiving the A-20B's? Curious if anyone knows!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reflector sight modeled in those images looked like the same type used on the P36c. I dont know the name of it but the choice of gunsight could follow the same doctrine like the russian IL-2 did. Early models got reflector sights while the 1943 variant got a sight you had to align yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it's me, the noisy neighbor!

 

I'm near Boston.

No wonder you're so wicked smat!

(not everyone will get that, but that's OK)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No wonder you're so wicked smat!

(not everyone will get that, but that's OK)

Well you made this Boston native snort at least, kehd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find myself trying to roughly convert speeds and distances into mph and feet so I can have a sense of scale as to what's going on.

 

I can tell that 300m is reasonably low, but 900ft means that in my head I can picture exactly where that is.

 

Same with speed, 480kph is fairly fast because the numbers are high. But 300mph makes perfect sense, I know exactly what's going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sit in an odd position where I know flight speeds and scales way better in metric, whereas I know driving and everyday measurements in imperial. Also, Fahrenheit is better than celcius.

 

Edited by =VOE=PangolinWranglin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man I wish we would go metric here in the US, but I don't see it happening in the 50 (hopefully) years I've got left.

 

 

LOL yeah I actually tried to learn the German and Russian words on the gauges but TBH I just recognize what they do by the scales/needles/colors so I rely on that instead :)

My first car was from 67 and was in Mph.  It sat nicely at 90 to 95Mph on the road but did drink a little oil and fuel in the process.  Must have been that 2 speed auto that was the issue )).

 

Don't the military and sciences in US now use Metric?  Think the only thing preventing change in Civilian Signage is the cost of replacement.  One day you shall join the rest of us.  Still for some things like tyre pressure I am more used to using psi instead of Bar, that's just something I use when I go for a drink.  Also strange that they have ps for HP which is similar.  Problem plane for me is my childhood favorite, the F16, I mean the Spit.  Just have to pay more attention to the notes and apply them to the gauges in her cockpit. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find myself trying to roughly convert speeds and distances into mph and feet so I can have a sense of scale as to what's going on.

I can tell that 300m is reasonably low, but 900ft means that in my head I can picture exactly where that is.

Same with speed, 480kph is fairly fast because the numbers are high. But 300mph makes perfect sense, I know exactly what's going on.

You're the first person I've ever met who has used the words "perfect sense" to describe the imperial system :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for folks who might know: the A-20B cockpit images released show a reflector gunsight yet I recall that the A-20C in IL-2: 1946 (and introduced in Pacific Fighters) had a ring and bead gunsight. I've done a cursory search but these details are often hard to find... was the reflector gunsight typical of the A-20B in the configuration ordered by the USAAF. Did the Russians modify the reflector sight after receiving the A-20B's? Curious if anyone knows!

 

 

Reflector gunsight was typical for USAAF A-20B, it was standard US type N-3 gunsight with gunsight head produced by Douglas, just like on pictures in DD 172.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sit in an odd position where I know flight speeds and scales way better in metric, whereas I know driving and everyday measurements in imperial. Also, Fahrenheit is better than celcius.

 

 

 

I am in the UK and born in the 60s. I find that I describe cold weather in Celsius (or Centigrade), as -2 makes sense in terms of how far it is from freezing point, but I still sometimes describe hot weather in terms of Fahrenheit eg, 'It is 98 in the shade.' :-)   I still use Yards, Feet, Miles but sometimes describe small measurements in centimeters or millimeters.  All shopping is done in terms of Kilograms & Litres but my own weight is always measured in Stones & Pounds.

Edited by 56RAF_Roblex
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reflector gunsight was typical for USAAF A-20B, it was standard US type N-3 gunsight with gunsight head produced by Douglas, just like on pictures in DD 172.

 

Awesome! I knew someone would have some sort of idea about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also what is the point of the nose crew position on the early A20s? Is it a navigator? because it definitely isnt a gunner position, he has no gun to operate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...