PDA

View Full Version : B-25 Mitchell Da Uber Killer



Smokey669
10-23-2004, 12:51 PM
The Mitchell seems to be really good. I have had AI battles with fighters in which the Mitchell often attempts to dogfight with fighters. It handles like a Bf110 but has almosy as many guns as a B17, many of them revolving power operated turrets, so it like a small maneuvrable B17!
Was the real Mitchell so maneuvrable and good against fighters?

VW-IceFire
10-23-2004, 02:33 PM
Can't say for sure but a family member flew Mitchells in the war. The one time I talked with him about it...he said he really liked the plane. It wasn't nimble like a fighter but it was still fairly manuverable.

Consider that even the Blenhiem has a turn radius similar to a Hurricane's and you start respecting the twin engined aircraft a little more. They aren't all big slow pigs with no manuvering power.

Chuck_Older
10-23-2004, 04:33 PM
Initial japanese reports of the B-17 called it 'essentially a four engined fighter', presumably based on it's firepower and surprising maneuverability for such a big plane.

It would be no surprise to me that twin engined bombers are pretty manueverable. I mean, what would be the point of a smaller version of a plane that couldn't maneuver? less bombload? It only makes sense that light and medium bombers are fairly manueverable, that's why every bomber wasn't a Heavy

Jungmann
10-23-2004, 06:02 PM
Interesting to have stats and combat reports on how many US bomber pilots shot down JAF fighters with their forward fixed guns. Imagine some B-25 pilots did. I know for sure some Avenger pilots shot down Zekes.

Cheers,

WOLFMondo
10-23-2004, 06:10 PM
I've not really taken to the B25...but the A20, now thats a beast of plane. I thought the Beaufighter would be my prefered plane of PF but the A20 has me hooked. If only it could have HVAR's mounted under the wings...

plumps_
10-23-2004, 06:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Smokey669:
The Mitchell seems to be really good. I have had AI battles with fighters in which the Mitchell often attempts to dogfight with fighters. It handles like a Bf110 but has almosy as many guns as a B17, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IMO it handles even better than the Bf-110 does after all the patches. Too good!? I had a turnfight against some japanese fighters and it was so easy. I was thinking that the BF-110 would have stalled in the manoeuvres i could perform in the Mitchell.

Philipscdrw
10-23-2004, 07:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
I mean, what would be the point of a smaller version of a plane that couldn't maneuver? less bombload? It only makes sense that light and medium bombers are fairly manueverable, that's why every bomber wasn't a Heavy <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Smaller bombers use less engines, fuel, crew, and materials, and have less systems to maintain or break, and can be built quicker. Unfortunately Il-2 sim doesn't extend to manufacture and airfield resource management simulation. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Snootles
10-23-2004, 07:23 PM
Also useful in situations where a big bomber might be unnecessary overkill. Furthermore, the bigger the bomber, the less strafe-capable it becomes. I'd like to see a Superfortress with a gun pack strafe a truck column http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif.

Mozzie_21
10-23-2004, 07:58 PM
While small twin engined bombers may have been maneouverable I doubt that they would have the speed, climbing and energy dogfighting abilities of fighters.

That was the whole thing with the Mosquito. They discovered that a bomber could be made to fly like a fighter on the condition that it had no turrets. No matter how it was done, any turrets that were placed on the mosquito made it fly like a bomber.

In any case medium bombers would have been flown like bombers because that was their mission. If fighters wowere needed, they would have used dedicated fighters.

Snootles
10-23-2004, 08:09 PM
Remember, the US obtained its first radar-equipped night-fighters by putting AI.Mk. IV sets into A-20s and calling them P-70s. Not that they were the greatest of designs. They were kept at home for training and last-ditch defense.

Hunde_3.JG51
10-23-2004, 08:23 PM
As I have said on a few occasions the Corsair and the B-25 are my favorite planes behind the FW-190.

The reason I like the B-25 so much was its versatility, and when I have seen them (numerous times) at airshows I was always amazed at their maneuverability. It struck me as one of the few (if not the only) very well defended bomber types that could actually stand a chance with good evasive maneuvers.

However I hope it is not as good as some here are saying, I am already disappointed in hearing about how good some of the USN planes are performing (including the Corsair). Oh well, I will just have to judge for myself (hopefully soon), and I look forward to taking them both out for a ride (again & again & again).

RenoNevada
10-23-2004, 08:34 PM
Quixk obe for Hunde of 3/JG-51 - the picture of the 190s in your sig - who is that by? That is an awesome painting!

Snootles
10-23-2004, 08:36 PM
Hmmm...maybe you should try and dogfight a good Bf 110 (with AI automation off, so you don't have the advantage of all those gunners). If you keep on winning, you know something is up.

Denwad
10-23-2004, 08:38 PM
wonder how many 50s you could fit in the nose of a B-29

p1ngu666
10-23-2004, 08:40 PM
there probably better than the beufighter, ingame atleast at dogfighters

mossie didnt have turrets because it reduced speed with drag.

mossie would cruise between 255mph and 325mph, depending on the mission, load etc

Dh where the only ones i think to go with the unarmed idea, and it was often slower at height than a fw190, but it was mostly used down low in daylight http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

xenios
10-23-2004, 10:51 PM
I re-read Catch-22 this summer, and I remember that Heller commented a few times on the agility of the B-25. The only unkind he had to say about the B-25 was about the tunnel from the bombardier station to the escape hatch in the cabin area. The tunnel was very cramped and prevented the poor bombardier from making a speedy escape if the plane was hit.

Copperhead310th
10-24-2004, 01:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xenios:
I re-read Catch-22 this summer, and I remember that Heller commented a few times on the agility of the B-25. The only unkind he had to say about the B-25 was about the tunnel from the bombardier station to the escape hatch in the cabin area. The tunnel was very cramped and prevented the poor bombardier from making a speedy escape if the plane was hit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

THIS WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT SUPRISED ME A GREAT DEAL. caps sorry.
over the summer i got the chance to take a walk through on a b-17 and i was shoccked @ how cramped it was getting through the dam thing from the nose hatch to the main door on the right side. i'm a fairly big guy..5'11'' 240 lbs. i'm not fat but thick chested and broad shoulders & muscular. the thought that went through my mind while i was going through this fort was. OMG how did they get through this thing so fast in an emergency.?!

Mozzie_21
10-24-2004, 01:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
the thought that went through my mind while i was going through this fort was. OMG how did they get through this thing so fast in an emergency.?! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They didn't. I recall reading in a book that it was incredibly rare that they would see 10 chutes from a fort or a lib.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pingu666:
Dh where the only ones i think to go with the unarmed idea, and it was often slower at height than a fw190, but it was mostly used down low in daylight <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Mosquito was pretty fast at altitude. I know that there was a day bomber variant that made high altitude raids. The FW-190 was probably 10-20mph faster, but that is much less than the probably 100 for a mitchel.

The point that I was trying to make is that small fighters would have the speed and climbing ability to dictate the terms of the engagement to a B-25, which is much more important than maneouverability.

If I was fighting someone flying a mitchel in a single engined fighter ( or a P-38, BF110 etc for that matter) and they got on my tail. I would simply outclimb them or speed away.

Daiichidoku
10-24-2004, 01:51 AM
Dem BIG wings make for good turning

the Hellcat good turn

Tigercatbetter than Corsair or Jug

B 17 hangs em hard

Stuka, natch

Even b 36 had good turn radius with that huge wing

I secrectly long for a P 61..(with gunner and radar positions? please? anyone? someday?) fits in WF scenarios, too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hunde_3.JG51
10-24-2004, 02:46 AM
RenoNevada,

It is by Philip West and it is called "On the Prowl."

Here is a site with a bunch of great prints/art. Click on "aircraft search", and go from there. It is extensive and there is a ton of great work. Also, look under "featured artists" as well for even more great art.

Here is link: Enjoy.

http://www.brooksart.com/index.html

Da_Godfatha
10-24-2004, 05:33 AM
The B-25J holds it's own against most fighters (in game). You have all those .50's plus FIVE forward firing ones. Loadout takes out most targets.

The A-20G is fast and also has a good loadout. PLUS, the A-20G has really great one-engine handling.

With para-frags, these two planes are the best planes to use for Vulchin...now the Anti-Vulcher whiners will have a field day.....LOL

Fehler
10-24-2004, 05:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xenios:
I re-read Catch-22 this summer, and I remember that Heller commented a few times on the agility of the B-25. The only unkind he had to say about the B-25 was about the tunnel from the bombardier station to the escape hatch in the cabin area. The tunnel was very cramped and prevented the poor bombardier from making a speedy escape if the plane was hit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

THIS WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT SUPRISED ME A GREAT DEAL. caps sorry.
over the summer i got the chance to take a walk through on a b-17 and i was shoccked @ how cramped it was getting through the dam thing from the nose hatch to the main door on the right side. i'm a fairly big guy..5'11'' 240 lbs. i'm not fat but thick chested and broad shoulders & muscular. the thought that went through my mind while i was going through this fort was. OMG how did they get through this thing so fast in an emergency.?! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know, that is an interesting observation. But do remember this... People are bigger today (On average) than they were back then. A big strappin' 6'2" guy usually towered above most of his buddies. Today, he would be lost in the crowd.

Then think of the kids that flew :The Ball" in a B-17! They liked to find guys that were shorter than 5'5" for the position!

Imagine all of this and you can soon realize these guys were brave, brave men. I watched a show a year or so ago, and a guy that was a ball turret gunner said that he was talking to an infantry soldier at a bar one night. The guy was about to get deployed to the fighting in Europe. The gunner asked him if he wanted to trade jobs, and when the soldier discovered that the trade would mean he would fly the ball, he told the gunner, "To hell with you!"

The B-25 will be fun to shoot at in my 190... If we ever get PF here in the US! Grrrr...

NegativeGee
10-24-2004, 06:08 AM
Its quite ironic about the ball turret gunners- it seems the craziest and most dangerous place to be on the plane, but they actually had the best surviability of all the crew positions on the bombers, both for the B-17 and B-24.

If you haven't got it already Gunner by Donald Nijboer has some really good photos of gunner postions in bombers and lots of interesting stuff on the role in general.

Osirisx9
10-24-2004, 06:58 AM
I'm glad to hear that my favorite ww2 aircraft can defend itself quite well. Also according to what I've read about the B-25, the aircraft was pretty nimble for its size after it was airborn and was near its cruising speed. I'm curious to know what the control forces on the PF B-25 are like. According to pilot reports from actual test pilots that I've read, the aircraft did have a heavy control feel. However this is my favorite aircraft and I'm going to fly it despite all of the whines about it. Also this aircraft will be used exstensivly on the Warbirds Of Prey servers. Dont worry axis pilots , your JU88 will fly like a sports car compaired to the B-25.

RAF238thOsiris

Mozzie_21
10-24-2004, 07:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NegativeGee:
Its quite ironic about the ball turret gunners- it seems the craziest and most dangerous place to be on the plane, but they actually had the best surviability of all the crew positions on the bombers, both for the B-17 and B-24. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hmmm that's interesting. I would have imagined that getting out of the turret in a crashing aircraft would have been very difficult. Especially given the waist gunner's ability to just jump out of their hatches.Did they wear their chutes in the turrets? Could you explain further. I am very interested to hear.

clint-ruin
10-24-2004, 08:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mozzie_21:
hmmm that's interesting. I would have imagined that getting out of the turret in a crashing aircraft would have been very difficult. Especially given the waist gunner's ability to just jump out of their hatches.Did they wear their chutes in the turrets? Could you explain further. I am very interested to hear. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As far as I know it depended on how cramped their position was.

Worth bearing in mind that most of the time any plane has to be fairly stable to stage a succesful bailout - probably goes double for a bomber, being that even a slight amount of G would be enough to prevent people from racing around inside the aircraft.

Something to think about for the next sim is pilot/aircraft contact and g-force modelling on bailout. Up until the "0-0" ejection seat a few different things were tried to make the pilots job easier - explosive cockpit glass release systems, bailout processes were tested and the best one suited for the aircraft type was chosen [leaning out the side with prop-downwash on it in the P-39], etc. But it wasn't [and still isn't] a given that any pilot would survive a bailout. Probably 50-75% chance of success would be generous, and if the plane has a wing off or is otherwise uncontrollable then that goes down dramatically.

edit: should also add that on the Eastern Front up to about the middle of the war, a lot of Soviet planes were coming out of factorys without any easy system to get the glass off the cockpit in an emergency at all - this and cockpit heat resulted in a lot of pilots flying with the pit open throughout their flight.

Still, I will enjoy bailing out and exiting through my own propellor til BOB I guess :>

actionhank1786
10-24-2004, 09:24 AM
Imagine trying to squeeze through the tiny corridors of a B-17 while it's spinning wihtout a wing.
I can't imagine the fear those men experienced.
they were brave one and all.

Tater-SW-
10-24-2004, 09:58 AM
The ball had some armor (unlike the near beercan thick skin of the plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ). Also, since he was curled up to fit in there, he presented less cross section I guess. I've heard that as well, though.

tater

Philipscdrw
10-24-2004, 10:09 AM
But if he has to climb out of the turret, strap on the parachute, and then find the escape hatch, then he will still die.

WB_Outlaw
10-24-2004, 10:39 AM
The ball turret surviveability statistic is probably not limited to bail out situations. Many crew members were DOA back at base. The ball turret gunner was the only crew member completely outside the cabin. Shooting the ball turret would do nothing except kill the gunner and stop his defensive fire. Since the point was to bring down the aircraft, and there were many more guns shooting back from the cabin, putting rounds into the cabin was a much better bang for the buck.

To enter/egress the ball turret, the guns were pointed straight down and the gunner stepped down into the turret through a VERY, VERY, VERY, UNBELIEVEABLE TINY hatch. He then wriggled through the small hatch and squatted down with his face nearly to his knees. There was some armor and padding for his back and rump. When the hatch was in place, and the guns rotated to level, he was pretty much laying on his back, looking between his knees through a tiny round porthole with the bottoms of his feet pointing in the same direction as the guns. The gun breeches were practically on either side of his head. The range adjustment for the reflector sight was controlled with the left foot.

-Outlaw.


-Outlaw.

WB_Outlaw
10-24-2004, 10:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by actionhank1786:
Imagine trying to squeeze through the tiny corridors of a B-17 while it's spinning wihtout a wing.
I can't imagine the fear those men experienced.
they were brave one and all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are absolutely right. Years ago I got a ride in the Texas Raiders B-17 during the co-pilot's checkout flight for pilot in command. He did four or five touch and go's and a few square orbits southeast of Houston. I happened to be crawling over the tail wheel cover (only a half cover really, pretty scary looking down through that hole in the floor) when he began a turn. A really gentle turn mind you and all I could do was lay down on the floor and wait. There was no way I could have made it back there without getting banged up/cut during the turn. Of course, it would be different if we were burning, but you know what I mean.

-Outlaw.

p1ngu666
10-24-2004, 04:58 PM
oh ya b17 is iccle inside, its round fusealarge is despetive, u have a walkway on the bottom, varies in width.. its not that wide tho.

i could only go from rear hatch abit in front of tail, forward to the bombbay, so to the nav place, dont think anyone was allowed down to the tail turret, but it IS small inside, and im 5,8 or sumin i dunno, but skinyish.

waist guns also had perspex windows on b17 (some versions anyway)

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2004, 05:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
The gun breeches were practically on either side of his head. The range adjustment for the reflector sight was controlled with the left foot.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, so I take it all these guys were deaf by the end of a tour?

How can you scrunch up like that for a long mission?... like 5 hours or so?

NegativeGee
10-24-2004, 07:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
The ball turret surviveability statistic is probably not limited to bail out situations. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, the point I raised earlier was based upon an analysis of dead/wounded casualties in aircraft that managed to RTB. The study was made by the USAAF based on data from the 8th.

In terms of bailing its much more difficult to draw such conclusions as it was harder to get accurate data as this tended to happen over enemy territory.

Maximus_G
10-24-2004, 08:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Da_Godfatha:
... PLUS, the A-20G has really great one-engine handling. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Don't know what this topic is about (B-25? B-17 ball turrets? Smth else?)
BUT when i tried A-20 at one engine (the other was hit and went down), there wasn't any yaw moment at all. Don't know if this can be called "great one-engine handling" - but a "bug" is definitely a good statement.

BfHeFwMe
10-24-2004, 10:58 PM
Killed a P-47 once in a flat scissors, with a He-111 from the nose gun, that make it too uber to? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Mozzie_21
10-25-2004, 01:43 AM
Thanks for that NegativeGee!

It all makes a lot more sense now.

Yeah, being in one of those ball turrets would be terrible.