My apologies

[Marabekm]

It would appear that I have requested armament changes on some aircraft without giving you guys the research to help prove my point. I apologize. I like most other people dislike the "hey blah blah is wrong" post or "this should be this way post" and the reason? "Because I just know."

So with that being said.
Here you can see the maximum armament for SBD-3 was a 1000 pound bomb centerline and 100 pound bombs on the wings. The SBD-5 had maximum armament of 1600 pound bomb on centerline and 325 pound bombs on wings.
http://www.aviation-history.com/douglas/sbd.html
Here is the report from USS Enterprise Air groups at Midway. Note the SBDs armed with 500 pound bomb centerline and 100 pound bombs on the wings (VS-6) and VB-6 armed with 1000 pound bomb centerline.
http://www.midway42.org/Midway_AAR/VS-6.aspx
Also it appears SBD-5 carried depth charges. Could be interesting.
So SBD-3 Armament should be something like this:
1x 1000 pound bomb
1x 500 pound bomb and 2x100 pound bomb
1x 500 pound bomb
1x 250 pound bomb
1x 250 pound bomb and 2x 100 pound bombs
2x 100 pound bombs
default
empty


Ok now for the B5N2 currently maximum bomb load is 600 kg. I believe this should be increased to 800 kg.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Japan/IJN/rep/Midway/Nagumo/
If you scroll down and find the attack on Midway you will see Soryu and Hiryu attack units armed with #80 land bombs. (weight 805 kg)

Hope this helps guys. Thanks.

[Pursuivant]

Some SBD-3 had a field mod that allowed it to carry a 58 gallon drop tank on its left wing.

SBD-5 had the inherent capacity to carry drop tanks instead of a bomb load on the wings.

Later marks of SBD-5 also carried ASB radar, operated by the gunner.

Apparently, there were a number of field mods to the SBD-5, although I haven't yet found pictures of them.

"Racks carrying multiple small bombs were fitted to the two wing bomb racks for ground attacks. Later provision for carrying a 1,600 lb. armor-piercing bomb on the center rack were qualified, though not for catapulting. [That is, this load was approved for take-off and landing on a carrier, but without catapult assisted take off] Pods carrying twin .50 guns were developed to be carried on the wing bomb racks, though infrequently used in combat. More often used were rockets mounted on underwing racks installed between the bomb racks and the radar antennas."

http://www.history.navy.mil/content/dam/nhhc/research/histories/naval-aviation/naval-aircraft/pdfs/sbd-5.pdf

Picture of FFAR rockets mounted on SBD-5:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/FFAR_on_SBD.png/220px-FFAR_on_SBD.png

[Pursuivant]

If TD is interested in further development of radar, or wants to get heavily into surface radar, here's more info about the ASB radar on the SBD-5:

"Speaking of new equipment, I remember the first radar we had installed on the SBDs while we were in Newfoundland. This was most primitive by current standards. We had two Yagi antennas mounted under each wing tip. We could rotate these antennas with a mechanical control lever from straight forward to 90 degrees to the port and starboard. The indicator was a cathode ray tube with a vertical baseline up the middle. The baseline was fuzzy on either side, which we called "grass." When the radar beam received a return echo from a ship, or other reflecting surface, a "blip" would appear along the baseline. The further the blip was up the baseline, the further away the ship was. Thus, we could measure the distance to the target along the vertical line. Not very sophisticated, but it worked."

http://www.airgroup4.com/edens.htm

[Buster_Dee]

If TD is interested in further development of radar, or wants to get heavily into surface radar, here's more info about the ASB radar on the SBD-5:

"Speaking of new equipment, I remember the first radar we had installed on the SBDs while we were in Newfoundland. This was most primitive by current standards. We had two Yagi antennas mounted under each wing tip. We could rotate these antennas with a mechanical control lever from straight forward to 90 degrees to the port and starboard. The indicator was a cathode ray tube with a vertical baseline up the middle. The baseline was fuzzy on either side, which we called "grass." When the radar beam received a return echo from a ship, or other reflecting surface, a "blip" would appear along the baseline. The further the blip was up the baseline, the further away the ship was. Thus, we could measure the distance to the target along the vertical line. Not very sophisticated, but it worked."

http://www.airgroup4.com/edens.htm

Any cockpit photos? I like my radars.

[IceFire]

It would appear that I have requested armament changes on some aircraft without giving you guys the research to help prove my point. I apologize. I like most other people dislike the "hey blah blah is wrong" post or "this should be this way post" and the reason? "Because I just know."

So with that being said.
Here you can see the maximum armament for SBD-3 was a 1000 pound bomb centerline and 100 pound bombs on the wings. The SBD-5 had maximum armament of 1600 pound bomb on centerline and 325 pound bombs on wings.
http://www.aviation-history.com/douglas/sbd.html
Here is the report from USS Enterprise Air groups at Midway. Note the SBDs armed with 500 pound bomb centerline and 100 pound bombs on the wings (VS-6) and VB-6 armed with 1000 pound bomb centerline.
http://www.midway42.org/Midway_AAR/VS-6.aspx
Also it appears SBD-5 carried depth charges. Could be interesting.
So SBD-3 Armament should be something like this:
1x 1000 pound bomb
1x 500 pound bomb and 2x100 pound bomb
1x 500 pound bomb
1x 250 pound bomb
1x 250 pound bomb and 2x 100 pound bombs
2x 100 pound bombs
default
empty


Ok now for the B5N2 currently maximum bomb load is 600 kg. I believe this should be increased to 800 kg.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Japan/IJN/rep/Midway/Nagumo/
If you scroll down and find the attack on Midway you will see Soryu and Hiryu attack units armed with #80 land bombs. (weight 805 kg)

Hope this helps guys. Thanks.
Doing the research groundwork is important. When I asked for the Yak-9UT guns to be accurately represented I ended up making a call for information and we found the correct data in Cyrillic text and had it translated by Google well enough to get the accurate information for that type. It's good to go slightly above and beyond to get stuff fixed :)

The inaccurate loadouts for the SBD come from back in the original Pacific Fighters release. We pointed it out then but it wasn't a priority and it never got fixed.

There are problems with changing it now... namely backwards compatibility gets seriously damaged in the IL-2 engine when you change the armament options. It'll be very messy and we may have to live with it. But I would advocate to add (adding is easy - subtraction is hard) the more accurate loadouts with the heavy centerline options plus the smaller wing loadouts.

[Pursuivant]

Any cockpit photos? I like my radars.

Nope. I'm sure they're out there I just haven't found anything yet.

Edit: Best I could do is a picture of a hyperscale model rear cockpit. Note the socket for the stick & the rudder pedals for the rear cockpit.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p160/richcarrick_2007/IMG_3647_zpsgmnb0mic.jpg

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p160/richcarrick_2007/IMG_3647_zpsgmnb0mic.jpg


There are pictures of the unmounted radar set itself.

http://www.smecc.org/asb-5_airborne_radar.htm

http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/military-navy-aircraft-tbm-tbf-avenger-asb-radar

Note that the US ABD radar was also installed on the TBF Avenger, and possibly other US Navy planes. so modeling the ABD system might benefit a number of planes.

If you haven't seen it yet, these transcribed manuals look promising for general details about various US radars:

http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/Radar/index.html#contents

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/RADTWOA/RADTWOA-2.html


Report on use the ABD radar for navigation:

http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Aircraft/AirInfoSummaries/Summary19.html


I also just learned that the gunner could fly the Dauntless from his position!

While forward visibility was probably pretty bad, making it unlikely that the gunner could land the plane, the gunner had rudder pedals, a detachable stick which could be fitted into place, and a more or less full set of instruments!

Operationally, this feature was mostly used to allow the gunner to keep track of altitude as the plane dived during dive bombing attacks, or to help keep the plane flying straight and level if the pilot was concentrating on some other task. (Of course, air gunners weren't trained pilots!)

https://books.google.com/books?id=d0sMQ15sPj8C&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=sbd+dauntless+rear+cockpit+control&source=bl&ots=C5rf4akAYy&sig=KdgR399OUYeTwRcW1fAkTFeM7Js&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CFMQ6AEwCmoVChMI2-yVp5nVxwIVh4I-Ch2OaQ1t#v=onepage&q=sbd%20dauntless%20rear%20cockpit%20control&f=false


Absolutely nothing to do with the SBD, but this report looks like it could be very useful for modeling just about any sort of Japanese radio, radar or MAD equipment. Too good to let go without a link:

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ_toc.htm

[Pursuivant]

There are problems with changing it now... namely backwards compatibility gets seriously damaged in the IL-2 engine when you change the armament options. It'll be very messy and we may have to live with it. But I would advocate to add (adding is easy - subtraction is hard) the more accurate loadouts with the heavy centerline options plus the smaller wing loadouts.

I'm not that worried about a few inaccurate loadouts being included in the mix, as long as all the historically accurate loadouts are present.

Just consider the inaccurate loadouts to be "what if" or "field mod" loads.

[Marabekm]

I'm not that worried about a few inaccurate loadouts being included in the mix, as long as all the historically accurate loadouts are present.

Just consider the inaccurate loadouts to be "what if" or "field mod" loads.


Well its also up to mission builder. You could easily just go in under plane limitations in mission builder and remove wrong loadouts. Now for SBD-5 I noticed another thread talking about depth charges and anti submarine warfare. Believe the Americans would have used mk 17 and later mk 41 depth bombs. Here: http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/D/e/Depth_Charge.htm
Another interesting fact: The early SBDs could carry a smoke tank, but cool as it would be, would be next to useless in game.

Good book on the subject: Naval Weapons of World War Two by John Campbell

[Pursuivant]

Now for SBD-5 I noticed another thread talking about depth charges and anti submarine warfare. Believe the Americans would have used mk 17 and later mk 41 depth bombs.

There is a mod which includes a number of depth charges, and it appears to be very well done.

In fact, the only problem with ASW operations in the game is that submarines don't work like they should - they don't submerge or surface properly, and they lack AI to make tactical decisions that a real submarine commander would make.

The early SBDs could carry a smoke tank, but cool as it would be, would be next to useless in game.

It doesn't appear that the smoke tank was ever used in combat, although allegedly during one early battle SBDs were supposed to lay a smokescreen to cover the approach of TBD torpedo bombers. I can't imagine that working out very well.

The smoke tank was supposed to lay a relatively heavy smokescreen to screen ship movements. I don't know what the tactical doctrine on using it was, though.

In any case, I think that the smoke tank got removed as part of attempts to reduce the SBD-3's weight after armor and self-sealing fuel tanks were added.