Why a B-25 in Bodenplatte?

[Dutchvdm]

Pretty sure it was the Bf-110F2 that was being requested to fill the "110 timeline gap"

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

I won't lie, i would like to see the Bf-110 F2 as well. It would even be a better fit then G model we have now, since it wasn't really present at Stalingrad or even Kuban for that matter. But i don't think it's  extremely important. We can circumvent this by using the G model as F model. 

 

It's a nice to have just like a Ju-87B, Yak-1 early etc.

 

Grt M

[Jade_Monkey]

Meh

 

If Jason decided on the B-26 there would be people asking why not the B-25?

Tempest, why no Typhoon?

190A8, why no A9?

Spit MkIX, why no MKXIV?

 

Never ends.

 

Exactly! Whatever the devs decide on, someone will argue for the other option. It's just the lazy response. Making the decision is the hard part.

 

When they pick a powerful plane (Tempest) people want the older one (Typhoon).

 

When they pick a "weaker" plane (B25), people want the better one (B26).

 

If only they would aknowledge that there are constraints in resources and that picking a plane is not always about historical accuracy but gameplay balance and fun, it would be more bearable.

Edited December 5, 2017 by Jade_Monkey

[EAF19_Marsh]

 

Come on, the answer is obvious

[Gambit21]

Pretty sure it was the Bf-110F2 that was being requested to fill the "110 timeline gap"

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

That must have been it.

[Fishbed64]

Specifically why would a B-26 be "more fun" than the B-25?

 

Coz B-26 sounds like real "bitch" plane to handle,much more challenging than B-25..."Martin B-26 Marauder was built in parallel with North American B-25 Mitchell, but while B-25 was docile handling airplane, the B-26 was nothing of the kind. It was built for speed and was a highly strung, unforgiving airplane, that needed to be tamed by the most experienced pilots. At 56 lbs/ft², it had the highest wing loading of any American World War II airplane—40% higher than that of the B-25!"

[ShamrockOneFive]

Yep

Winged Victory - very general, but all IX TAC, and covers Normandy.

A good read, but doesn't cover Belgium.

https://www.amazon.com/Winged-Victory-Army-Forces-World/dp/0375750479

 

Hell Hawks - 365th Fighter Group.

VERY good.

https://www.amazon.com/Untold-American-Savaged-Hitlers-Wehrmacht/dp/0760338256

 

Also this - very good as well.

A hard copy will cost you $300 or so if you can even find it...but in PDF it's still a great read.

Leap Off - History of the 404th

 

Wonderful recommendations and resources! Thanks!

 

Pretty sure it was the Bf-110F2 that was being requested to fill the "110 timeline gap"

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Yeah someone was asking about the Bf110F-2 during the Q&A.

 

Compared to some other types that are out there I don't see the 110F-2 as being a vital gap to fill. But everyone has a favourite

[Necrobaron]

From a marketing and expediency viewpoint, I think it makes a lot of sense to go with the B-25. It wouldn't be totally out of place either. However, personally I would love to see the B-26 included since it all too often seems to be overlooked. Another important and relevant Allied twin I've not seen anyone mention is the A-26. It could also be used in the any later PTO expansions too.

 

As far as light/medium bombers and twin-engined strike craft, it seems like the B-25, B-26, A-26, A-20(G) and Mosquito would make a potent offering on the Allied side. As for the Axis, the Me-210/410, Ju-88©, Ju-188 and Ar-234 would be nice to eventually see. Of course, those nine aircraft alone would be enough for a ground attack themed expansion...

Edited January 23, 2018 by Necrobaron

[Yankee_One]

Hopefully we will se one day the 8 gun nose as an option. That would be awesome for the Pacific theatre.

 

 

I like the B-25 and i am more exited for the P-38L

Edited January 24, 2018 by Yankee_One

[MiloMorai]

Only B-25s with British roundels were seen in the ETO.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Hopefully we will se one day the 8 gun nose as an option. That would be awesome for the Pacific theatre.

 

 

I like the B-25 and i am more exited for the P-38L

 

It's not impossible. Jason did say during the Q&A that at least part of the reason for picking it was because it could be made flyable later and the B-25 flew in every front almost from start to end of the war. It's good long term planning.

 

Only B-25s with British roundels were seen in the ETO.

 

You say that like it's a bad thing

 

The type they operated was essentially identical to those in USAAF service so it's a good pick for other fronts and theatres later.

[MiloMorai]

 

 

You say that like it's a bad thing The type they operated was essentially identical to those in USAAF service so it's a good pick for other fronts and theatres later.

 

Not at all.  ​ It was a FYI to those to not expect star and bar on B-25s in the ETO.

 

Agreed.

[Eicio]

From a marketing and expediency viewpoint, I think it makes a lot of sense to go with the B-25. It wouldn't be totally out of place either. However, personally I would love to see the B-26 included since it all too often seems to be overlooked. Another important and relevant Allied twin I've not seen anyone mention is the A-26. It could also be used in the any later PTO expansions too.

 

As far as light/medium bombers and twin-engined strike craft, it seems like the B-25, B-26, A-26, A-20(G) and Mosquito would make a potent offering on the Allied side. As for the Axis, the Me-210/410, Ju-88©, Ju-188 and Ar-234 would be nice to eventually see. Of course, those nine aircraft alone would be enough for a ground attack themed expansion...

 

I really like the design of the A26 too but I believe that it wasn't used on the PTO, the A20s didn't quite like it as their european counterparts did, but I like the idea though.

 

The me 210 wouldn't be relevant, it was kind of a fail and they gave the ones they produced to the hungarians that made modifications to the plane which then became the 410.

 

But overall there is a lot of medium bomber in ETO that would be very nice to handle, unlike those flying bus b17s, lancasters...

[Art-J]

^ Just for the record, A-26 did serve in the PTO, actually its combat debut was over New Guinesa during summer of '44, then it went on till the last ops from Okinawa as the war ended. The plane was never liked there, however, considered not suitable for PTO, and most of the units ended up in Europe, where it became more popular. We're getting off-topic, though.

Edited January 24, 2018 by Art-J

[Mac_Messer]

I really like the design of the A26 too but I believe that it wasn't used on the PTO, the A20s didn't quite like it as their european counterparts did, but I like the idea though.

 

The me 210 wouldn't be relevant, it was kind of a fail and they gave the ones they produced to the hungarians that made modifications to the plane which then became the 410.

 

But overall there is a lot of medium bomber in ETO that would be very nice to handle, unlike those flying bus b17s, lancasters...

Not me. The B26 is buttugly.

[MiloMorai]

"Not me. The B26 is buttugly."

 

Buttugly would be the 3 view drawing I did using only a photo of a B-25 when was ~8-9 years old.

[Trooper117]

RAF Mitchells were on the Luftwaffe target list based at Brussels - Melsbroek, airfield ( B.58).

 

As a matter of interest, B-17's were also on that target list at 2 other airfields.

There were also Mosquitos and Lancasters. plus, as someone has already mentioned, Typhoons as well.

 

Have to say though, those are simply the main types, there were others to be found, but as the dev's would never be able to produce all types on the target list, I think we have a pretty good cross section of what was around at the time of the attack

[Lusekofte]

I want the B 26 more than the B 25 for the same reason I want DO 17 more than a early JU 88. Only time you got to fly these where in the rubbish CFS 3 . B 25 and JU 88 one could fly in IL 2. And I find that if we do not get it here we will never get to fly it ever. 

It will probably not be more fun, but a different fun

Edited January 24, 2018 by 216th_LuseKofte

[Necrobaron]

I really like the design of the A26 too but I believe that it wasn't used on the PTO, the A20s didn't quite like it as their european counterparts did, but I like the idea though.

 

The me 210 wouldn't be relevant, it was kind of a fail and they gave the ones they produced to the hungarians that made modifications to the plane which then became the 410.

 

But overall there is a lot of medium bomber in ETO that would be very nice to handle, unlike those flying bus b17s, lancasters...

 

Well, I used Me-210/410 interchangeably but you're correct of course. The 410 would make more sense.

 

Not me. The B26 is buttugly.

 

I think he was referring to the A-26. The B-26 does kinda look like a flying cigar but it's not that bad, imo. As mentioned, I'd like to see it because it played a notable role in the ETO and is often overlooked.

 

 

 

As a matter of interest, B-17's were also on that target list at 2 other airfields.

There were also Mosquitos and Lancasters. plus, as someone has already mentioned, Typhoons as well.

 

Have to say though, those are simply the main types, there were others to be found, but as the dev's would never be able to produce all types on the target list, I think we have a pretty good cross section of what was around at the time of the attack

 

My hope is we might at least get heavy bombers such as B-17s, Lancasters, etc as stationary ground targets/airfield dressing.

[senseispcc]

And now the bickering begins, it is not important that we get a B26 or a B25, we get a plane that is non flyable for the moment maybe if ever. Yes, the B25 was more used and yes the B26 is a more recent plane but a more difficult plane but why not the A-26 also called the B-26 before it changed name how did serve in WW2?

No they did chose the B25 and I am happy with their choice, the B25 was a respectable warplane a real medium bomber even if it was called the mini B-17.

​

And the B26 some like and are associated with the Me-262, do you know why? It is easy they were the planes that bombed the airfields from the Me-262 and with success.

Big four engines bomber are an otther problem and should covered in a special game made for the subject.

 

​I do like what is given and hope for more later, but am happy with wat is on offer, thanks to the team of BOX.   

Edited January 25, 2018 by senseispcc

[PatrickAWlson]

Pluses and minuses.

 

B-25: Used by many countries, including Russia, sothis will help not only the Bodenplatte scenario but can also be added to the eastern front.

 

B-26: Used by the US in the ETO, where the B-25 was not.  However, not really sent to other countries.

 

I'm OK with the B-25.  I would have been OK with the B-26. 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

All aspects considered the B-25 is the logical choice. It's also partly'cutting a corner' for pacific development which is good.

[BlitzPig_EL]

B-26 aircraft were the first USAAF medium bombers used in New Guinea and the Solomons, pretty sure they flew out of Australia.

 

The RAF operated B-26s in the Med in the anti shipping role using torpedoes and also laying mines, and as recce aircraft. They also shot down a fair number of Ju52s air to air.

 

The Marauder was faster than the B-25, especially the earlier short wingspan versions.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Maybe, just maybe one day we will see both these beauties as flyable aircraft in the sim, but I would be more than happy if we get the chance to fly the B-25.  

 

[Monostripezebra]

A B25 is is just a very logical choice.. information and dokumentation is available, it is a very iconic plane, plenty got built and it flew in many theatres.. so by making one you get a good cross-usability, potentially.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Whether its B-25 or B-26 I'm fine with it. Just as long as it ends as flyable aircraft and not just an AI asset. 

 

In regard to B-26 ... it was pretty damn important in 1942-1943 combat in the Pacific. At least three Bombardment Groups operated it: https://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/b-26/index.html

Decent number was shot down or lost due to non-combat reasons as wrecks indicate. 

 

But still, I dont see what the fuss is about. For now it will only be Ai so whats the difference. 

[Mac_Messer]

Maybe, just maybe one day we will see both these beauties as flyable aircraft in the sim, but I would be more than happy if we get the chance to fly the B-25.  

 

Looks to be a very nimble aircraft for its size.

 

I`ll be waiting for it eagerly. Meanwhile going to dogfight the Boston in my Me110.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Looks to be a very nimble aircraft for its size.

 

I have had the pleasure of getting a 45 minute ride in a B-25, and I was shocked how nimbly it got around the sky for such a large aircraft.  When we turned back for home (we were flying along the southern shore of Lake Erie) the pilot made a wonderful 1G turn to the left.  I heard the power come up and then she banked hard to the left and pulled on the yoke.  All I could see out the left waist gunner window was green fields and shore and water, and all you could see out the opposite side was sky.  The plane came smartly around, then leveled out and the power came back to cruise...  Just like another day at the office.  The three of us in the rear of the aircraft were just grinning at each other like small children in a candy store...

[DD_Arthur]

@_EL;  Squadmate's ride in a B 25 from Grimes Field.  Event to mark the seventieth anniversary of the Doolittle raid 

 

 

 

[Ehret]

We should get the A20 soon - I think she will surprise a few; A20 has an excellent power-loading for a medium sized plane. Personally, I would prefer to see other versions of the A20 first, than flyable B25, or B26. What about the A20 mod with quad cannons?

[=38=Tatarenko]

I much prefer the B25 over the B26 because we can use it in Russia too.

[Gambit21]

I much prefer the B25 over the B26 because we can use it in Russia too.

 

Of more use, for a longer period of time in the PTO as well...plus it's just cool, and Night Ranger used it on their album cover...so what else can you ask for really?

 

Edited January 26, 2018 by Gambit21

[PatrickAWlson]

Of more use, for a longer period of time in the PTO as well...plus it's just cool, and Night Ranger used it on their album cover...so what else can you ask for really?

 

 

I can ask that a band other than Night Ranger use it for an album cover.

[Lusekofte]

All B 26 in Europe was demobbed and destroyed in Europe. It was regarded as the most accurate type , with the absolute best hit ratio of all allied level bombers. Most losses due to Flak and not accidents witch is the common belief. After ground crew and Aircrew got better and more detailed training , failures and landing accidents was regarded not a problem anymore. Shame really that all these planes was destructed . 

[SYN_Luftwaffles]

I'm guessing devs are probably going to model planes first that they can carry over into different theaters or plane sets with slight model variations, or that they can use the guts of in order to expedite the modelling of another plane in another expansion. That way they can get more bang for their buck. I doubt they will ignore the b17. I would imagine that is already planned as an ilya mourmets-type expansion for the future after the immediate projects are done.

[Gambit21]

I can ask that a band other than Night Ranger use it for an album cover.

 

If there was then that's the cover I'd have posted.

As it stands, you'll live with Night Ranger and like it.

[Cybermat47]

I can ask that a band other than Night Ranger use it for an album cover.

Sabaton has you covered.

 

 

The album even has a song about Franz Stigler and Charlie Brown, and another about the Night Witches

Edited January 27, 2018 by FFS_Cybermat47

[Gambit21]

Ha - nice.

[BlitzPig_EL]

DD_Arthur, your squadmate's video was great.  Wish I could have been there, as I live 2 hours by car from the NMUSAF in Dayton, but it was mid week and I could not get away from work.

 

The video also points out something about the B-25 that those who have only flown in airliners or small civilian aircraft have never experienced...  Deafening sound pressure levels.

Unlike the B-17 and B-24, whose engines were turbocharged, the Wright R2600s on the 25 were mechanically supercharged only, and hence had an individual exhaust stack for each cylinder, which made them extremely loud, both inside and out.   The B-17 I flew in was like riding in a Rolls-Royce by comparison.

Edited January 27, 2018 by BlitzPig_EL

[Rjel]

The video also points out something about the B-25 that those who have only flown in airliners or small civilian aircraft have never experienced...  Deafening sound pressure levels.

Unlike the B-17 and B-24, whose engines were turbocharged, the Wright R2600s on the 25 were mechanically supercharged only, and hence had an individual exhaust stack for each cylinder, which made them extremely loud, both inside and out.   The B-17 I flew in was like riding in a Rolls-Royce by comparison.

I just watched a documentary, Five Came Back about Hollywood directors who served in WWII, including William Wyler who made the Memphis Belle film in 1944. He flew some missions over Europe in B-17s during the filming. He also made the documentary "Thunderbolt". During the making of that film, he flew several times in B-25s without hearing protection. He was stone deaf when he returned to America and only regained some 25% of his hearing in one ear.