If you have trouble understanding all that information, then that might be a problem on your end. I have always done my suggestions using this layout which you can clearly see in my other topics:
Good job defeating gaijin by getting this suggestion for the Junkers Ju 290 A-7 approved since I have also been trying to do the same with my slightly superior suggestion since September 2023 with no results
Maybe if you tried a less infodumping approach you could get the suggestion passed without struggling for an entire year? Once you get the hang of the formatting that the mods want to see you can get suggestions approved first time no problem at all.
These 80+ pages of specs, diagrams and pictures are intended for gaijin, not you.
So tuck them away in a nicely foldered (hidden with spoilers tag) ‘sources’ section, so anybody who wants to peek at the technical details can, and those who aren’t as interested don’t have to scroll past 80 pages to get to the comments.
Or ignore this advice and continue not being able to get a simple suggestion passed for an entire year, it’s up to you to be honest, I don’t mind.
A +1 from me, would be neat to see. From what I recall this particular aircraft was once slated to be preserved by the nascent National Air Museum, however, it later ended up scrapped like a lot of other stuff much to the annoyance of Paul Garber.
I was considering making a suggestion for the A-8 variant, but I was hesitant, as not nearly as many were produced as the A-7 variant. I’ll consider making a separate suggestion, but I have other plans at the moment.
That’s the main reason I was so interested in it! The amount of guns is stunning, making it a dangerous opponent for enemy fighters if piloted by someone who knows how to aim the turrets.
Well, obviously, since the ETC 2000 rack can carry 1 x Hs 294 which has the weight of about 2,176 kg as well as instances on other aircraft such as the Heinkel He 111 H-6, which could carry up to a 2,500 kg bomb using the same ETC 2000 rack. In addition, SC 250 & SC 500 bombs could also be carried by the ETC 2000 rack:
Declined. Gaijin had no problems approving my other topics, which are pretty much identical to this one. I think that the only “problem” that they had was with this sentence:
Theoretically yes. The point was that the bombrack itself is most definitely capable of carrying the SC 2500, but what about the actual aircraft itself? Is there enough ground clearance for a 1 x 2,500 kg bomb under the fuselage? Would RATO be required? Would flying over the ocean for many hours just to drop a single SC 2500 (overkill) on a royal rust bucket be worth it when you can use smaller bombs to potentially destroy 3x more vessels?
Fact is that with this defensive firepower you can expect a BR of 6.3 - 6.7 minimum for Air RB. The problem of the missing range with MG 151/20s thanks to the SD bug won’t be considered by gaijin.
You will face than mostly 7.0 to 7.3 matches due to the bulk of US/UK/USSR jets in this BR range - there is pretty much nothing you can do vs F-89s or Supermarine Attackers as their closing speed is way too high.
A2D-1s are not that fast, but they outclimb you easily before you can drop and shred you to pieces. Even a plain 7.0 F-84B with 0.50 cals will saw one of your wings off…
true but I say fuck it and put it at 4.0 its a bomber u can destroy it and bye then at that be people should know where to aim to take out a bomber tho
