Either give it wing mounted MGs and call it the B5N1, or give it the 800 kg bomb it could carry. An effectively unarmed CAS with 250 kg bombs is borderline useless.
2 Likes
- Guns: 1 × 7.7 mm Type 92 machine gun ‘Ru’ (Lewis) in rear dorsal position, fed by hand loaded drum magazines of 97 rounds. A number of B5N1s were equipped with 2 × 7.7 Type 97 machine guns in the wings.
- Bombs: 1 × 800 kg (1,760 lb) Type 91 torpedo or 1 × 800 kg (1,760 lb) bomb or 2 × 250 kg (550 lb) bombs or 6 × 60 kg (132 lb) bombs[17]
The B5N1 carried a forward machine gun armament for strafing an possible attack in flight, two 7.7 Type 97 machine guns in the wings. But it was not the case for all. In fact many went just equipped with a defensive armament only, a single flexible-mounted 7.7 mm (.303 in) Type 92 machine gun.
The main use of the B5N was its Type 91 torpedo carried underbelly. It was mounted under racks were fixed eccentrically, to the right-bottom of the fuselage. They could be replaced for a model supporting a 800 kg bomb (Like the Type 99 No 80 armor-piercing bomb also used by the “Val” with devastating result, but in that case, dropped in level-bombing) or two 250 kg bombs (Type 98, No 25) or six smaller 60 kg bombs (Type 2 No 6). Replacing racks however was a two hours long process to complete, which cost the admiralty dearly at Midway…
https://j-aircraft.com/faq/B5N.htm
dude both are realistic there is no universal armament and the N2 over the N1 seems to be minor performance enhancement not a weapons upgrade
now if you think its to weak for its br ok, but not accurate hardly
Never said it wasn’t accurate; just hot garbage at its BR.
1 Like
yeah but asking to go from br3 to br1 is liquid feces
I think lowering the br will do just fine.
2 Likes