Jump to content


Proposal: Tier 9 US/British Ground Attack


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
14 replies to this topic

SkywhaleExpress #1 Posted 09 April 2014 - 12:04 AM

    noob leader

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 4 battles
  • 10,731
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    09-09-2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_B-57_Canberra

 

The English Electric Canberra, licensed and built as the Martin B-57 Canberra, would be an awesome Ground Attack Aircraft. It could fill the gap in tier 9 whatever total line we use. I'm assuming of course, that we'll have to mix it up with Douglas A-20G Havoc, NA B-25 Mitchel, Martin B-26 Invader, and similar designs.

 

/discuss?



Air Raid 8 Champions - BrushFyre

MIA - pappabear


Kiwiav8r #2 Posted 09 April 2014 - 02:58 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 608 battles
  • 787
  • [ACES_] ACES_
  • Member since:
    09-26-2013
Ground Attack?  Seriously?  You do know it was used as a reconnaissance aircraft because of its superior altitude performance to its contemporaries, in fact, it could out climb and had a higher ceiling than most fighters when it entered operational service.

"Credibility down, Kill Ratio up!" - Joe 'Hoser' Satrapa

Aces (pre v1.9):  Bulldog, A4N, Hawk III, F2A-1, I-16(e), Skua, Ar68, A6M1, P-36, XF4F-3, Bf-109B, Bf-110B, Bf-110 C6, Blenheim, Bf-109E, Bf-110E, P-40, P-40 M105, XFL-1, Spitfire I, M.20, Beaufighter, IL-2 (mod), XF4U-1, Mosquito, P-51A, Yak-7, Yak-1M, Bf-109F, La-5, Spitfire V, Me-410, F4U-1, Fw-190 A5, Yak-9, XP-50, P-39Q-15, Mustang Mk 1, P-38J, P-51D, Yak-9U, Bf-109G, La-7, Spitfire IX, A7M, Fw-190D, F7F, Yak-15, Me-262

 


SkywhaleExpress #3 Posted 09 April 2014 - 03:43 AM

    noob leader

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 4 battles
  • 10,731
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    09-09-2012

The Martin B-57 Canberra is a United States-built, twin jet engine tactical bomber and reconnaissance aircraft that entered service with the United States Air Force (USAF) in

Armament

  • Guns:20 mm (0.787 in) M39 cannon, 290 rounds/gun
  • Bombs: ** 4,500 lb (2,000 kg) in bomb bay, including nuclear bombs
    • 2,800 lb (1,300 kg) on four external hardpoints, including unguided rockets

 

Now, you tell me this thing isn't a perfect attack aircraft.....

 

It's comparable aircraft even includes the IL-28.

 

 

Also, there is a big difference between the attacker/bomber variant and the WB-57 is that intelligence/reconnaisance/communications one you speak of. Which is still in use today... of course, only 3 of them.



Air Raid 8 Champions - BrushFyre

MIA - pappabear


Kiwiav8r #4 Posted 09 April 2014 - 04:20 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 608 battles
  • 787
  • [ACES_] ACES_
  • Member since:
    09-26-2013

View PostRocketSpammer1, on 09 April 2014 - 03:43 PM, said:

Armament

  • Guns:20 mm (0.787 in) M39 cannon, 290 rounds/gun
  • Bombs: ** 4,500 lb (2,000 kg) in bomb bay, including nuclear bombs
    • 2,800 lb (1,300 kg) on four external hardpoints, including unguided rockets

 

Now, you tell me this thing isn't a perfect attack aircraft.....

 

English Electric Canberra

The Canberra had its origins in a 1944 Air Ministry requirement for a successor to the de Havilland Mosquito – a high altitude, high-speed bomber with no defensive armament.

 

More like a perfect credit/xp piñata... 

 

The basic spec reads more like a heavy fighter, kind of like a Beaufighter.


"Credibility down, Kill Ratio up!" - Joe 'Hoser' Satrapa

Aces (pre v1.9):  Bulldog, A4N, Hawk III, F2A-1, I-16(e), Skua, Ar68, A6M1, P-36, XF4F-3, Bf-109B, Bf-110B, Bf-110 C6, Blenheim, Bf-109E, Bf-110E, P-40, P-40 M105, XFL-1, Spitfire I, M.20, Beaufighter, IL-2 (mod), XF4U-1, Mosquito, P-51A, Yak-7, Yak-1M, Bf-109F, La-5, Spitfire V, Me-410, F4U-1, Fw-190 A5, Yak-9, XP-50, P-39Q-15, Mustang Mk 1, P-38J, P-51D, Yak-9U, Bf-109G, La-7, Spitfire IX, A7M, Fw-190D, F7F, Yak-15, Me-262

 


Raindrops #5 Posted 09 April 2014 - 04:46 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 92 battles
  • 782
  • [EDF] EDF
  • Member since:
    02-05-2012

I'd actually say it'd fit as a ten, not a nine - it outpaces the IL-40P by 10kmh, and carries an impressive bombload as well - 3300kilos total, equivalent to a little over three IL-20s. I had looked at it before while building my McDonnell/Douglas lines, but the main thing to consider is that it is a license-built British plane - and as such, is likely to cap a GA line for that tree instead.

 

And Kiwiav8r, a lack of defensive armament isn't everything - it carries enough ordinance to waste all enemy GTs after all. Besides, the lack rear gunner hasn't hurt my BSh-2 any. What you're looking at with the Canberra is more or less a P.228 with an extra 100kmh speed and five times the ordinance - could it play HF? Yeah, but with all that explodey goodness, why should you?


Edited by Raindrops, 09 April 2014 - 04:51 AM.

I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.


K538 #6 Posted 09 April 2014 - 05:08 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Open Beta Tester
  • 7 battles
  • 289
  • [RCAF] RCAF
  • Member since:
    07-28-2013

Don't get me wrong, I think the Canberra was a great plane. It was essentially designed to be a jet era Mosquito type light bomber.  This thing would probably not have hacked it as a ground attack plane, no armour to speak of and way too fast to be practical.  This was an airframe designed to fly higher than anything during its era so as to avoid enemy fire.  It was really only replaced by the U2 in the recce role.

 

It looks as though the British and Americans used it to some degree as an interdiction plane, but this is not what the plane was best known for. The cannon armament wasn't integral, it looks like it was a gun pack that was placed in the bomb bay.

 

Unlike the Mosquito, the Canberra never had a fighter derivative designed and if you look at the records it set you see that it was completely optimized for range, speed and altitude.

 

If you want to have a GA plane near the endgame for the UK, take a look at the Blackburn Buccaneer.  The only problem with that plane is that didn't have any guns (though maybe WG could retcon it with cannon pods or something).  For the US, to me the obvious answer is to have the Douglas AD Skyraider as a high tier GA plane.  It's possibly the most successful purpose built GA plane ever built and it had a long life so I could see it fitting in at a few different tiers.

 

I would love for there to be a Canberra in the game, but I think it would be a very strange fit.   That said, WG has clearly done crazier things in the past so if they have to do something nutty then this would be an interesting choice.  My fear is that the Canberra would be too powerful if they left it anywhere near the real world stats.  Imagine having a GA plane that is also one of the fastest and highest flying planes in the match at tier.  As long as you don't try to turn and burn you'd be unstoppable!


The is a signature.

SkywhaleExpress #7 Posted 09 April 2014 - 05:32 AM

    noob leader

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 4 battles
  • 10,731
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    09-09-2012

540 MPH is not fastest at tier 9... not by a longshot.. And if it's too fast to be practical, why did the Soviets have the IL-40? It was only halted in production, because oif a policy change to tactical nuclear weapons.

 

Also, the A-1 Skyraider would still fit better at tier 7 or 8, considering that speed is necessary at tier 9/10 for even GAs.

 

 



Air Raid 8 Champions - BrushFyre

MIA - pappabear


Raindrops #8 Posted 09 April 2014 - 12:22 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 92 battles
  • 782
  • [EDF] EDF
  • Member since:
    02-05-2012

View PostCaptainBluenose, on 09 April 2014 - 06:08 AM, said:

Don't get me wrong, I think the Canberra was a great plane. It was essentially designed to be a jet era Mosquito type light bomber.  This thing would probably not have hacked it as a ground attack plane, no armour to speak of and way too fast to be practical.  This was an airframe designed to fly higher than anything during its era so as to avoid enemy fire.  It was really only replaced by the U2 in the recce role.

 

It looks as though the British and Americans used it to some degree as an interdiction plane, but this is not what the plane was best known for. The cannon armament wasn't integral, it looks like it was a gun pack that was placed in the bomb bay.

 

Unlike the Mosquito, the Canberra never had a fighter derivative designed and if you look at the records it set you see that it was completely optimized for range, speed and altitude.

 

If you want to have a GA plane near the endgame for the UK, take a look at the Blackburn Buccaneer.  The only problem with that plane is that didn't have any guns (though maybe WG could retcon it with cannon pods or something).  For the US, to me the obvious answer is to have the Douglas AD Skyraider as a high tier GA plane.  It's possibly the most successful purpose built GA plane ever built and it had a long life so I could see it fitting in at a few different tiers.

With speed, it out-runs the IL-40P by a small margin. Not too fast, but no snail either. It was used to rather great effect as an interdictor and ground-support aircraft, especially when it came to strafing supply trucks. The cannons, (and the octet of .50s they replaced) were wing-mounted, so the gunpack did not interfere with the bomb bay. The Buccaneer is much faster than the Russian GAs, being more comparable to most fighters, but the lack of armament is a bit of a big deal. As for the Skyraider, while it was used on into the jet age, its speed is unexceptional, leaving it around the IL-20. The Skypirate/Skyshark/Skyhawk that came after would follow it though as high-end aircraft.


I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.


SkywhaleExpress #9 Posted 09 April 2014 - 02:26 PM

    noob leader

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 4 battles
  • 10,731
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    09-09-2012

The IL-40P had a Maximum Speed of ~617 MPH.. How is that slower than 598 MPH of the Canberra?

 

in game, the 40's speed and cruise speed were nerfed, so it can easily be done to the Canberra. Also, this could be turned into a tier 10 if it is too fast at 9



Air Raid 8 Champions - BrushFyre

MIA - pappabear


Raindrops #10 Posted 09 April 2014 - 02:55 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 92 battles
  • 782
  • [EDF] EDF
  • Member since:
    02-05-2012

IL-40P is rated at 954km/h top speed. B-57 is given as 917-960km/h, depending on who you listen to. This puts it a minimum of 30km/h over the -40 to 10km/h over the -40P. I'd actually push for a lower speed than the one Wikipedia cites, but my main reasoning for placing the plane high is ordinance. 9x500lb and 4x750lb bombs, for 13 bombs with 6000+ damage apiece. That's a lot of superiority before you even use the guns.


I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.


SkywhaleExpress #11 Posted 09 April 2014 - 03:10 PM

    noob leader

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 4 battles
  • 10,731
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    09-09-2012

View PostRaindrops, on 09 April 2014 - 09:55 AM, said:

IL-40P is rated at 954km/h top speed. B-57 is given as 917-960km/h, depending on who you listen to. This puts it a minimum of 30km/h over the -40 to 10km/h over the -40P. I'd actually push for a lower speed than the one Wikipedia cites, but my main reasoning for placing the plane high is ordinance. 9x500lb and 4x750lb bombs, for 13 bombs with 6000+ damage apiece. That's a lot of superiority before you even use the guns.

If you noticed, the IL-40 carried more munitions. The game only gives it 2x500kg bombs. For balancing purposes, they don't give any plane more than 2x500kg bombs.



Air Raid 8 Champions - BrushFyre

MIA - pappabear


Raindrops #12 Posted 09 April 2014 - 03:23 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 92 battles
  • 782
  • [EDF] EDF
  • Member since:
    02-05-2012

-F7U has 4x500... Okay, that's lbs, kilos it's still 1k.

 

Also, as with the rest of the IL line, the -40 relies on the cannons - and the 23s do work wonders. The amount of ordinance given to the Canberra for "balance's" sake would depend on how effective its 20mms are. (the M39s have a considerably higher rate of fire than the AM-23, so they probably would do quite well.) Also, the IL-40 was to carry up to 1400kg, which isn't that far from what it has now. (1200kg with TRS-132/FAB-500)


Edited by Raindrops, 09 April 2014 - 03:27 PM.

I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.


Kiwiav8r #13 Posted 09 April 2014 - 10:03 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 608 battles
  • 787
  • [ACES_] ACES_
  • Member since:
    09-26-2013

View PostRaindrops, on 09 April 2014 - 04:46 PM, said:

And Kiwiav8r, a lack of defensive armament isn't everything - it carries enough ordinance to waste all enemy GTs after all. Besides, the lack rear gunner hasn't hurt my BSh-2 any. What you're looking at with the Canberra is more or less a P.228 with an extra 100kmh speed and five times the ordinance - could it play HF? Yeah, but with all that explodey goodness, why should you?

 

Because it would mean the Canberra would be limited in role, something the actual plane was definitely not.  As a heavy fighter it would be able to attack both ground targets and aircraft on equal terms which is more befitting.  Besides, I doubt WG would animate the Canberra's rotating bomb bay just for historical accuracy.

 

And as for the rear gunner, I love shooting down BSh2's and IL2's because as long as you keep your distance from potential bomb kills there is nothing the the GA pilot can do about it except wait to die.  That's kind of like flying the P.228 though. :trollface:


"Credibility down, Kill Ratio up!" - Joe 'Hoser' Satrapa

Aces (pre v1.9):  Bulldog, A4N, Hawk III, F2A-1, I-16(e), Skua, Ar68, A6M1, P-36, XF4F-3, Bf-109B, Bf-110B, Bf-110 C6, Blenheim, Bf-109E, Bf-110E, P-40, P-40 M105, XFL-1, Spitfire I, M.20, Beaufighter, IL-2 (mod), XF4U-1, Mosquito, P-51A, Yak-7, Yak-1M, Bf-109F, La-5, Spitfire V, Me-410, F4U-1, Fw-190 A5, Yak-9, XP-50, P-39Q-15, Mustang Mk 1, P-38J, P-51D, Yak-9U, Bf-109G, La-7, Spitfire IX, A7M, Fw-190D, F7F, Yak-15, Me-262

 


Raindrops #14 Posted 09 April 2014 - 11:45 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 92 battles
  • 782
  • [EDF] EDF
  • Member since:
    02-05-2012

Calling it a HF wouldn't make it any more or less capable at being a HF - in fact, as we've seen so far, it would decrease its GA ability by losing the boost vs. ground targets. A GA designation would allow it to make the most of its ordinance, while still allowing you to strip it of ordinance and play impromptu HF if you choose.

The major issue would be if it WG labeled it GA and then squashed performance to fit in the neat little "altitude range" box they have now - which would be a gross misjustice.

 

And considering there are no animated bay doors yet - much less rotating - I'd say the Canberra wouldn't get animation either. (As much as I'd like to see it or the XB-51 open up and deliver a world of hurt.)


I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.


SkywhaleExpress #15 Posted 10 April 2014 - 12:18 AM

    noob leader

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 4 battles
  • 10,731
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    09-09-2012

American GA aircraft in real life had higher service ceilings and were generally faster/more maneuverable than the Russian IL line.

 

Take the A-20G Havoc line, for instance, and you'll see it's faster, higher flying, and capable as a heavy fighter/night fighter.



Air Raid 8 Champions - BrushFyre

MIA - pappabear





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users