Developer Diary, Part 158 - Discussion

[216th_Jordan]

It looks like bailing out would be difficult.

 

Why? Look at that picture and see the 'Parachute Exit' hatch!

[downedpilot]

Any News on Spitfire release? 

 

I cant wait for spitfire 

[Luger1969]

An opportunity for a mod. But the same reason would proably hold to the Ju88- removal of the bombsight as explained then, plus plus I know the work and dev timeframes are very tight so not expected.

 

Just an idea if in furture possible (workload and time) it would be great and also if  it would require extensive work I would pay for such.

 

 http://www.aviation-history.com/douglas/a20.html

 

"A field modification replaced the plastic nose with a solid nose, which housed four to six 0.50 caliber machine guns."

[Pilot_Rabbit]

 No more fps drop when taking off from Moscow. 

[E69_julian57]

Impressive the A-20, good memories of IL-2 1946

[BMA_FlyingShark]

 

 

Nope, I meant those guns pointing forward 

Ah yes, now I see.

 

  

[Herne]

didn't the a20 have a top turret ?

[Finkeren]

didn't the a20 have a top turret ?

Yes and no. The top rear gunner position was just a flexible MG on the early models.

 

 

On later models such as the G and H this was upgraded to a 2xHMG powered turret (the ventral gunner was also upgraded from a .30 to a .50 cal.)

 

 

However, in Soviet service, many of the earlier A-20s were upgraded with a turret of Soviet design, similar to the ones found on the Su-2 and IL-4, mounting a single ShVAK or UBK.

 

 

The last option we might get as a field mod.

[LukeFF]

The last option we might get as a field mod.

Nope, Han has already said that's not going to happen.

[Brano]

UBT,not UBK

T stands for turelnyi = for turret mounting

K stands for krylevoy = for wing mounting

and not UBK-1 turret but UTK-1

 

I posted some info on USSR Bostons here in this thread

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25105-20b-thoughts/?view=findpost&p=444527

[Finkeren]

Nope, Han has already said that's not going to happen.

Really? That's sad. And a missed opportunity IMHO.

 

Those modified turrets are a hallmark of the A-20 in Soviet service.

[Brano]

Really? That's sad. And a missed opportunity IMHO.

 

Those modified turrets are a hallmark of the A-20 in Soviet service.

Yes,for DB-7B/C and A-20C. Not our A-20B

Another DD screenshot of the team putting the finishing touches on the A-20:

 

 

That's A-20C :D

[Thad]

Really? That's sad. And a missed opportunity IMHO.

 

Those modified turrets are a hallmark of the A-20 in Soviet service.

Yes, but the A-20 is an American made plane. It can't be made too capable can it?

[Bubi]

Jason, can you show video/pictures with new airfields?

[LukeFF]

Yes, but the A-20 is an American made plane. It can't be made too capable can it?

Your poor attempt at trolling has been noted.

[Finkeren]

Yes,for DB-7B/C and A-20C. Not our A-20B

Are you sure about that? The examples of the turret modification I've seen in drawings and photos are most often described as A-20Bs and they generally don't have the chin bulges for the .50cals associated with the A-20C either.

[Frequent_Flyer]

Yes, but the A-20 is an American made plane. It can't be made too capable can it?

 

Your poor attempt at trolling has been noted.

Your poor attempt at passing off anyone with a different opinion as a troll is duly noted. 

[Finkeren]

Yes, but the A-20 is an American made plane. It can't be made too capable can it?

In this particular case it would have been Soviet engineers and mechanics who made it too capable, so that's kind of a moot point, ain't it?

[Frequent_Flyer]

In this particular case it would have been Soviet engineers and mechanics who made it too capable, so that's kind of a moot point, ain't it?

It would have been time better spent ,trying to engineer the deficiencies from the  IL-2 and Pe-2 , I guess politically that would not have been acceptable or perhaps beyond the engineering capabilities of the Russians.The loss ratio to sortie flown in the IL-2 was appalling. But I guess in principle the VVS did not consider their air crews to be the most important asset.

[216th_Jordan]

It would have been time better spent ,trying to engineer the deficiencies from the IL-2 and Pe-2 , I guess politically that would not have been acceptable or perhaps beyond the engineering capabilities of the Russians.The loss ratio to sortie flown in the IL-2 was appalling. But I guess in principle the VVS did not consider their air crews to be the most important asset.

Those were engineered too Its not like there were only a handful of engineers.

[Frequent_Flyer]

Those were engineered too Its not like there were only a handful of engineers.

[Finkeren]

It would have been time better spent ,trying to engineer the deficiencies from the IL-2 and Pe-2 , I guess politically that would not have been acceptable or perhaps beyond the engineering capabilities of the Russians.The loss ratio to sortie flown in the IL-2 was appalling. But I guess in principle the VVS did not consider their air crews to be the most important asset.

The appalling losses weren't really due to any particular engineering deficiency in either the Pe-2 or the IL-2 (though you could argue, that the overall concept of the IL-2 was somewhat flawed), and if you think the VVS didn't put any value on the lives of their crews you are mistaken.

 

The VVS was fighting a pretty desperate struggle all the way up to mid-1944. They didn't have the luxury of being able to spare either men or machines. Compare the losses of VVS regiments to another air force fighting desperately against an advancing, tactically superior enemy, like Armée de l'air in 1940, and you'll see the loss rates are not that dissimilar.

[Brano]

Are you sure about that? The examples of the turret modification I've seen in drawings and photos are most often described as A-20Bs and they generally don't have the chin bulges for the .50cals associated with the A-20C either.

A-20C had 0.30 inch mg in those bulges,not 0.50. There is not firm evidence available to me that A-20B had UTK-1 turrets installed as standard. As a testbed or small amount,yes. The aim of soviets was to upgun as priority older DB-7s and A-20Cs. A-20B already had 12.7mm HMGs. Kind of waisting time to replace them with another 12.7mm.

[CF-105]

Your poor attempt at passing off anyone with a different opinion as a troll is duly noted. 

 

Your duly noting is duly noted.

[LukeFF]

Your poor attempt at passing off anyone with a different opinion as a troll is duly noted.

Edited May 24, 2017 by LukeFF

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Hey, no picking on my Hawks!

[Jason_Williams]

Knock it off everyone.

 

Jason

[CF-105]

Completely off topic, and wildy speculative/far in the future, but I'm wondering what aircraft from Battle of Midway will show up first.  I'm just gonna go ahead and guess a F4F or an A6M, probably the Wildcat though, being American and more popular.

[Finkeren]

Completely off topic, and wildy speculative/far in the future, but I'm wondering what aircraft from Battle of Midway will show up first. I'm just gonna go ahead and guess a F4F or an A6M, probably the Wildcat though, being American and more popular.

I think it's largely gonna come down to which best fit into the development schedule. Likely it's going to be the one that is easiest to research and also a single-seater.

[Jade_Monkey]

I think it's largely gonna come down to which best fit into the development schedule. Likely it's going to be the one that is easiest to research and also a single-seater.

^ This

 

As seen with BOK, the most anticipated planes don't always come first. Depends on how much work they are and how much info is available to start developing the planes.

[CF-105]

In my opinion, any aircraft from the Pacific would be great. The F4F fits quite nicely then, it's a single seater, easy to research, doesn't have lots of different options for armaments, and it's popular to boot.  F2A is much in the same boat, just less famous.