Thinking out loud about other A-20 variants

[ShamrockOneFive]

I've been thinking (dangerous, I realize) about comments on Allied bombers in Battle of Bodenplatte and/or the lack thereof. I think this is very much a fighter-bombers paradise with aircraft that can carry more ordinance than some bombers but lets ignore that or a second and just zoom in on the premise that people want purpose built bombers alongside the already excellent aircraft set that's coming.

 

Then I started thinking about the development realities of what the team has to put together as well as historical considerations and that leaves me with one idea but I'm curious to know if people out there have additional details. We already have the A-20B. Its a person favourite and I fly it quite a lot. I've done a little reading on the A-20G and J and how different or the same these aircraft are and it makes me wonder if the A-20G/J would be candidates for a Collector Plane in the future and a bomber that wouldn't require a huge redevelopment effort by the devs.

 

I want to zoom in on a specific block here. The A-20G-20-DO and A-20G-25-DO.

 

Quote

 With production block A-20G-20-DO, an electrically-driven manned Martin power turret equipped with two 0.50-inch machine guns was introduced in place of the single hand-held machine gun in the rear compartment. To accommodate this new turret, the fuselage had to be widened by six inches in the area of the gunner's compartment. The turret could rotate 360 degrees, and the guns could be elevated from horizontal to directly upwards. At the same time, the 0.30-inch machine gun in the ventral tunnel position was replaced by a 0.50- inch gun. Also introduced on block -20 was a pair of bomb racks stressed to carry 500-lb bombs underneath the outer wing panels. Internal fuel capacity was increased from 540 US gallons to 725 gallons, and provision was made for the mounting of a 374-gallon drop tank underneath the fuselage.

 

A-20G-25-DO introduced several minor changes such as sealed beams for the landing lights and a pilot seat made of non-strategic materials. One example (43-9230) was diverted to become the A-20J prototype.

http://www.joebaugher.com/usattack/a20_17.html

 

Also, the A-20J-1-DO:

Quote

 Early in the summer of 1943, the Air Materiel Command at Wright Field requested that Douglas study the possibility of installing a transparent, bomb-aimer's nose in approximately one out of ten A-20Gs. This would enable the aircraft to be used as formation leaders on bombing runs, with solid-nosed A-20Gs dropping their bombs on signal from the leader. The A-20J was the result.

For the A-20J, Douglas designed an entirely new nose, which consisted of a frameless, molded Plexiglas canopy. This nose added seven inches to the aircraft's length, and carried a bombardier operating a Norden bombsight. Only the two side-mounted forward-firing nose guns were retained. In the field, these nose guns were often removed to lighten the load if there was no apparent need for them. The crew now consisted of four--pilot, dorsal turret gunner, ventral tunnel gunner, and bombardier.

The first A-20J was created by converting A-20G-25-DO serial number 43-9230.

http://www.joebaugher.com/usattack/a20_19.html

 

So it seems to me from the A-20B that we have through to the A-20G-25-DO and A-20J-1-DO there would be some changes such as the solid nose on the G and a redesigned nose on the J. There would also be the Martin powered turret with two .50cal in the rear station plus the fuselage widening of 6-in. The dorsal station would replace the .30cal with a .50cal.

 

Were there other significant changes to the cockpit for example? This is all a long winded way of thinking that a very versatile aircraft could be introduced at some point at the end of Bodenplatte's development which could incorporate the same cockpit and dorsal positions on the A-20B with potentially minor changes and get both A-20G and A-20J which were used by the USAAF 9th Air Force during the time period that Bodenplatte is set in. Bonus points too because the Boston IV was the RAF designation for the A-20J and used by French and British forces under the 2nd TAF.

 

That's a lot of plane for less development than a whole new bomber. I'm of course jumping the gun on this by about a year but I wanted to get it out there

Edited May 18, 2018 by ShamrockOneFive

[Gambit21]

I’d put money on a C happening (torpedos/Kuban)...but it’s the G that gets my juices flowing.

[angus26]

37 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

I’d put money on a C happening (torpedos/Kuban)...but it’s the G that gets my juices flowing.

Ohh boy, that G model is quite the aircraft. Sounds like quite an an attacker!

[JtD]

I think the cockpit was different, it got reworked with the G.

 

Imho, we know the A-20 very well from Il-2:1946. However, we don't know the B-26, which was the medium USAAF bomber in the theatre. I'd be more interested in seeing this one at a steeper price than another A-20.

[WheelwrightPL]

A20 is as fast and as maneuverable as a heavy fighter, don't believe me ? here is the official data:

 

A20B

Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Combat: 505 km/h
Maximum performance turn at sea level: 24.5 s, at 270 km/h IAS. 

Bf 110 G-2 

Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Combat: 489 km/h 
Maximum performance turn at sea level: 23.5 s, at 270 km/h IAS. 

 

They should recreate A20-G in game to fully realize ground-attack and bomber-hunting potential of A20 so it can be used in similar way to Bf110. And as a bonus A20 is already more robust than the notoriously fragile Nazi plane so it can take more flak.

[DD_Arthur]

I would imagine a G model with the powered turret would represent a great deal of work both in modelling, new coding and a recalculation of the flight model.

 

Perhaps something like this might evolve or even be a precursor to a flyable B25 - which would involve all the above anyway?

 

Nice idea though

Edited May 18, 2018 by DD_Arthur

[ShamrockOneFive]

24 minutes ago, JtD said:

I think the cockpit was different, it got reworked with the G.

 

Imho, we know the A-20 very well from Il-2:1946. However, we don't know the B-26, which was the medium USAAF bomber in the theatre. I'd be more interested in seeing this one at a steeper price than another A-20.

 

This is what I was wondering. If the cockpit is a substantial re-work then it doesn't make quite as much sense. If its mostly the same then that would hopefully make it easier.

 

B-26 has always been interesting too. I haven't seen one in a sim since.... Aces Over Europe. Wow.

[=621=Samikatz]

15 minutes ago, WheelwrightPL said:

A20 is as fast and as maneuverable as a heavy fighter, don't believe me ? here is the official data:

 

Don't need the data, just go fly it into battle, you can BnZ every other twin engined plane all day long and there's nothing they can do about it

[=27=Davesteu]

Regarding the specific variants I argue the ones you called out are probably too early. Those blocks were manufactured in 1943.
Additionally the VVS had many late block ones as well, so in conclusion I guess probably the G-45/J-20 combination would be the best choice regarding G/J blocks.

The "strafer" concept worked out in the Asiatic-Pacific-Theatre, but didn't in Europe. The Western Allied air forces noticed this as did the VVS.
Consequently I strongly argue in favor of a J/K with an attack nose version being a "nice to have" modification for example.
Luckily easy convertibility from attack nose to bombardier nose and vice versa was a designated design feature on the real airframe.
The A-20K would be the optimal choice for the upcoming BoBP map and timeframe. Unfortunately it wasn't in combat with the VVS and the H mostly saw service in the Asiatic-Pacific-Theatre - a formation of just K models would look wrong.
So maybe the G-45/J-20 really would be the most versatile choice.

Repeating my usual blurb, I hope the Devs mainly focus on Asiatic-Pacific-Theatre after finishing everything announced right now. At the same time I know other people are hoping for more Western/Eastern Front content, which is quite likely to happen in form of collector aircraft according to one of Jason's recent posts.

I like the idea of A-26 and especially B-26 way better than any A-20 though. The only drawback being they would have to be made from scratch.
Let's see what's going to happen with the B-25. Hopefully we will be able to fly it one day. And I strongly hope they go for the C/D rather than the J.

Edited May 18, 2018 by =27=Davesteu

[Custard]

I've always thought that the A-20G would work really well as the Allied bomber in a 1943/1944 Italy Scenario.

Just thinking aloud.

[Venturi]

B-25 Mitchell

Which can bomb Japanese airfields.

[ShamrockOneFive]

The B-25 and B-26 are both very interesting types for sure.

 

What I'm more thinking about is if the A-20G/J could be lined up as a Collector Plane to fill a gap. A whole new bomber is going to be a more major project so it may be a while before we see the B-25/Mitchell II become a flyable type.

 

Basically, if they don't have to reinvent the wheel then perhaps there's some time saving. Maybe not.

[BlackSix]

Guys, please help to take decision about A-20 AI A-20B for the BOBP career

[Bremspropeller]

I'm also more into the B-26 and A-26, but we'll have to take what we'll get.

A B-25 isn't half bad either.

 

The B-26 could get very interesting if the runaway propellers get modelled (don't drain your batteries and use the putt-putt on startup!).

Unfortunately, the later variants got down a notch or two in the looks and performance departments.

[CanadaOne]

An A-20 with many, many, many, many guns.

 

That's the variant I want.

[Velxra]

27 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

An A-20 with many, many, many, many guns.

 

That's the variant I want.

 

I second this motion. lol

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

A proper bomber for Bobp would be great (A20 is near useless like most Murican war machines ? )

Need something good and british like Lanc or Welly or Stirling or Hali (all real bombers  / war machines, Not warbond Sellers ? ? )

 

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, =TBAS=Sshadow14 said:

A proper bomber for Bobp would be great (A20 is near useless like most Murican war machines ? )

??

 

I know! Good thing ANZAC forces has all those great Australian built aircraft during the war!

[LukeFF]

3 hours ago, =TBAS=Sshadow14 said:

A proper bomber for Bobp would be great (A20 is near useless like most Murican war machines ? )

Need something good and british like Lanc or Welly or Stirling or Hali (all real bombers  / war machines, Not warbond Sellers ? ? )

 

 

 

You mean like all those  British bombers that had to fly at night to survive, or the all the American A-20s and B-25s they ended up flying?

 

(Not mocking RAF Bomber Command's contribution to the war (I have a British relative who fought in the war), just the patently ridiculous comments Shadow loves to make sometimes).

Edited July 26, 2018 by LukeFF

[Haza]

5 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

 

You mean like all those  British bombers that had to fly at night to survive, or the all the American A-20s and B-25s they ended up flying?

 

(Not mocking RAF Bomber Command's contribution to the war (I have a British relative who fought in the war), just the patently ridiculous comments Shadow loves to make sometimes).

 

I guess arriving late for both World Wars, you have to expect some mocking, as well!

 

However, in saying that, I would appreciate some high altitude type bombing missions being generated by BlackSix, that would allow some SP engagements for the Me262, as I really can not see that happening in MP mode.  In addition, I've read that the USAF were seriously considering withdrawing their daylight bombing operations because of their loses to the likes of the Me262, so hopefully BlackSix can work his magic!?  

 

I'm guessing that Shadow's humour was, as ever, too much for some and we are seperated by a common language and some just need to chill!

 

Regards

Edited July 26, 2018 by Haza
262 stuff

[DD_Arthur]

1 hour ago, Haza said:

I guess arriving late for both World Wars, you have to expect some mocking, as well!

 

So is it ok to mock the Australian contribution to WW2 after 1942?

[Haza]

Just now, DD_Arthur said:

 

So is it ok to mock the Australian contribution to WW2 after 1942?

 

Well, I'm well aware of Australia's contribution and will let others worry and feel offended!

 

[EAF19_Marsh]

Quote

I've read that the USAF were seriously considering withdrawing their daylight bombing operations because of their loses to the likes of the Me262, so hopefully BlackSix can work his magic!?

 

Err, they really did not. Losses to 262s were minuscule as % of sorties (as were 2626 sorties as % of interceptions) so far lower than bomber losses to flak, for instance.

 

Suspect with an AI B-25 and the BoBp map some medium-altitude missions might be more suitable.

[MiloMorai]

That discussion occurred in 1943 when there wasn't long range escorts available for deep penetration of German controlled airspace. Certainly no Me262s around then.

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

I Was joking seriously.. who thinks a .303 is better than 20mm automated gun turrets ?

Relax