Will we ever see other A-20 variants?

[Karl_Marxxx]

The A-20G, specifically?  These were used by the Soviets, but maybe after our time period?  I also read about Soviet field mods on the A-20C where it was armed with autocannon, so maybe a loadout option that reflects this?

[ShamrockOneFive]

The common refrain from the dev team is that, yes, they would like to do as many aircraft as they can. A A-20 variant would be a very welcome thing around much of the community and I think a G model would be superb.

 

For a more detailed answer, I asked the devs directly and you can read that in the Q&A I did with them several months ago: https://stormbirds.blog/2019/02/12/part-2-an-interview-with-jason-williams-and-daniel-tuseev/

[CountZero]

This is good read also:

https://vvsairwar.com/2018/01/09/the-douglas-a-20-havoc-boston-in-soviet-service/

 

"Indeed, A-20Gs were initially meant to be used solely by USAAF units; neither the Soviet Union nor the RAF were meant to receive the gunships. Nevertheless, due to the VVS’ need for and effective use of the twin-engine aircraft, a total of 1,606 G variants, nearly half of those produced, were sent to the Soviet Union, where they were given the nickname Zhuchok, meaning little bug (the suffix G is pronounced Zh in Russian, thus leading to the nickname).

 

Given the G’s forward firepower, the VVS utilized the new variant as a ground attack aircraft as opposed to the light bomber role given to the B and C models. The first Soviet unit to receive the new gunship was the 244th BAD, with the 861st BAP being the first to use the G in the ground attack role. Unfortunately, the G Havocs proved to be too vulnerable to the heavy German anti-aircraft fire that was nearly ubiquitous when flying at low altitudes, and by November of 1943, the 861st had withdrawn their A-20Gs from ground attack operations due to heavy losses. Instead, Soviet forces typically used the heavily-armored Iyushin Il-2 Sturmovik for ground attack purposes. Consequently, a significant number of the Soviet G Havocs were modified, either in the field or at Factory No. 81 in Moscow, to resemble earlier B and C variants, with a glazed nose and bombardier position (most of the forward-firing guns were, of course, removed). Several other strategies were employed to install a bombardier position elsewhere in the A-20G, including behind the bomb bay and behind the pilot, both of which allowed for the retention of the forward-firing armament, but in the vast majority of cases, the nose was simply replaced. In any event, the VVS’ A-20Gs, whether modified or not, were used extensively in all the Soviet Union’s major offensives in the final two years of the war, participating in Operation Bagration, the Jassy-Kishinev Offensive, and the advance on East Prussia. Similarly, Zhuchoks were very active in the skies over Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Germany in 1944 and 1945, and in the final month of the war, Soviet A-20Gs carried out bombing missions against German-held positions in support of the Red Army’s operations against Berlin."

[III/JG53Frankyboy]

lmagine a server A-20 versus Ju88 - both with gun and glass noses .....

 

Bf110G vs Pe-3 was kind of fun in Il-2‘46 .

[Avimimus]

The question I've always had on this: The A-20G-1 or a later A-20G-20?

 

I believe that the A-20G-1 had the same with fuselauge, same gunner positions (etc.) as our A-20... it also had four 20mm cannons (with replacing the cannons with machine guns being an optional field modification). So it would be easier/cheaper to model and have a better offensive armament. 

 

However, the A-20G-1 served primarily with the Russians and thus the G-20 would be more attractive to Americans (and have a better defensive armament).

[III/JG53Frankyboy]

was the whole hull wider or only the area around the turret?

[Bremspropeller]

According to William Wolf's A-20 book (p.158), the fuselage around the turret was widened by 6 inches.

 

If you compare pictures, it seems to be evident that that just encompasses the direct area affected by the turret.

The lower fuselage appears to be unchanged.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Bremspropeller

[Ribbon]

I really love the A-20 but i'd rather they spend time and resources on B-25/26 even at the cost of non-playable rear gunner positions which i believe are not much used anyway.

Having a medium bomber with bigger cockpit and animated copilot is really missing in this sim.

It gives the feel of flying bomber instead of heavy fighter and masks the lack of heavies.

Right now il2 feels like ww2 fighter flight sim, with he111 exception.

[sevenless]

4 hours ago, Karl_Marxxx said:

The A-20G, specifically?  

 

I am all for it. The more the merrier.

[Gambit21]

The A-20G fits everywhere. More 'exactly' historically, anal retentively accurate in some places/times than others, but plausible and fun everywhere.  

With the G you have a model that can be used on the Stalingrad map all the way through Normandy and on to Belgium/Germany...and more fun to boot with those guns.

 

 

 

 

[ShamrockOneFive]

6 hours ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

I really love the A-20 but i'd rather they spend time and resources on B-25/26 even at the cost of non-playable rear gunner positions which i believe are not much used anyway.

Having a medium bomber with bigger cockpit and animated copilot is really missing in this sim.

It gives the feel of flying bomber instead of heavy fighter and masks the lack of heavies.

Right now il2 feels like ww2 fighter flight sim, with he111 exception.

Your post makes me think that perhaps once Tank Crew is finished, Digital Forms, who are doing the tanks might be called upon to model the interiors of the B-25 and B-26 - seeing as they do a superb job with that.

[Ribbon]

7 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

Your post makes me think that perhaps once Tank Crew is finished, Digital Forms, who are doing the tanks might be called upon to model the interiors of the B-25 and B-26 - seeing as they do a superb job with that.

That would be nice, those two bombers would sell nice imo (i'd happily spend 30-50$ per such bomber), being iconic and closest to heavies from what we have now.

So far only he111 with it's cockpit provides such feel, that cockpit in VR is WOW, b26/26 with copilot would be even more!

And i really think not modeling playable gunner posts is 100% justified, AI is doing that job more than good.

And primary this is flight sim where we start as pilots so switching to gunner mid flight is unrealistic even being nice addition.

I used to switch to rear gunner post a lot but only on top rear gunner post, i never used any other gunner posts so that could be another option (not modeling all gunner posts playable).

 

Right now i'm sad seeing they turn medium bombers into heavy fighters with BoN planest, not that i have anything against them but simply we lack bombers in BoBp/BoN, theatre where bombers were most noticable role.

Il2 being my main pc occupation (beside pornography ??) i hope it won't end up as ww2 fighter sim only.

 

Variety is welcomed in any game, so having potent bombload or even torpedo loadout (ju88 a17, ju188 e2 or he111)which could be used on BoN map  for sinking allied supplies alongside flyable b25 or b26 would done that job.

[354thFG_Leifr]

I would happily see gunner positions left as AI only for the sake of seeing more bomber aircraft made available to the player. Normandy should have been the most appealing planeset yet with the DC-3 and B-25, but with them as AI only it's a non-purchase for me.

[Missionbug]

59 minutes ago, Leifr said:

I would happily see gunner positions left as AI only for the sake of seeing more bomber aircraft made available to the player. Normandy should have been the most appealing planeset yet with the DC-3 and B-25, but with them as AI only it's a non-purchase for me.

 

Have to agree, in the real world the pilot would do just that, fly the thing, not jump between different positions so there is really no absolute need to model them, just leave them AI.

 

Not sure why there is the insistence from the development team and players for all positions to be manned, this seems to be a major impediment to the inclusion of certain types.

 

As to the OP, I am sure there will be a A-20 G at some time, they have the main components so it is not like it is a complete new aircraft, unfortunately a opportunity was lost to include the current version in Europe because they would not add British and American armament and decided it was not entirely historical to the time frame, maybe if it had Bf, Me or Fw in front of its name it would be here now.

 

Anyway, we wait patiently for the G, I am getting old now though so I can only hope I see it.

 

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.

[Bremspropeller]

An A-26 would be cool, too - especially with the strafer-nose.

It should be doable in terms of crewing and it would fit the Bodenplatte map.

[Lusekofte]

4 hours ago, Leifr said:

I would happily see gunner positions left as AI only for the sake of seeing more bomber aircraft made available to the player. 

I agree on this, but I hate the fact you cannot enter the bombardier cockpit in the A 20 we got
that is the one thing cod does better. 
You need to enter bombardier seat to get to bombsight. 

Edited December 20, 2019 by No.322_LuseKofte

[BlitzPig_EL]

 

Yes please.