Author Topic: JU-52 ARMED Transport. What say you chaps?  (Read 3506 times)

Offline Pannono

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1101
Re: JU-52 ARMED Transport. What say you chaps?
« Reply #45 on: March 13, 2008, 09:58:11 PM »
1× 13 mm MG 131 machine gun in a dorsal position
2× 7.92 mm MG 15 machine guns
up to 455 kg (1,000 lb) of bombs (some variants)
not what id call overpowering but ill take it
Pannono
Proud Member of Pigs On The Wing
8 Player H2H: 2006-07
MA Tours: 87, 97-113, 143-144, 160-Present
FSO: JG54

Offline Lumpy

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 547
Re: JU-52 ARMED Transport. What say you chaps?
« Reply #46 on: March 14, 2008, 04:37:20 AM »
The Fw 200 didn't have a weak structure at all. That's just a popular Discovery Channel quality myth. The Fw 200 was a successful civillian airliner (like the DC-3) that was converted to military use. The Germans just put too much stuff on it and overloaded it with bombs and equipment. This lead to metal fatigue in the structure. Same thing happened to countless allied bombers which were regularly overloaded with bombs and fuel. Btw. the Fw 200 top speed was 224 mph at 15k, and special recce versions carried enough fuel to reach the U.S. coast on their patrols.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2008, 04:40:30 AM by Lumpy »
ā€œIā€™m an angel. I kill first borns while their mommas watch. I turn cities into salt. I even ā€“ when I feel like it ā€“ rip the souls from little girls and now until kingdom come the only thing you can count on, in your existence, is never ever understanding why.ā€

-Archangel Gabriel, The P

Offline Puck

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2980
Re: JU-52 ARMED Transport. What say you chaps?
« Reply #47 on: March 14, 2008, 12:23:20 PM »
The JU52 could only carry 3x 7.92(?) miniguns I believe. The same to which our JU-88 has, I believe.

A minigun!  WOOHOO!!!  AJu-52s to go with our AC-47s!

:D
//c coad  c coad run  run coad run
main (){char _[]={"S~||(iuv{nkx%K9Y$hzhhd\x0c"},__
,___=1;for(__=___>>___;__<((___<<___<<___<<___<<___
)+(___<<___<<___<<___)-___);__+=___)putchar((_[__
])+(__/((___<<___)+___))-((___&

Offline SgtPappy

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1174
Re: JU-52 ARMED Transport. What say you chaps?
« Reply #48 on: March 14, 2008, 01:10:22 PM »
YES for eine Junkers 52 Tante! 
I am a Spitdweeb

"Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of earth... Put out my hand and touched the face of God." -J.G. Magee Jr.

Offline Major552

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: JU-52 ARMED Transport. What say you chaps?
« Reply #49 on: March 16, 2008, 12:57:33 AM »
Possibility but other than in axis vs allies has it a role?

In my opinion next plane should be German or Soviet Bomber, Next gv the cromwell tank with a 75mm cos its fast and we havent got a British tank. A Japanese or Italian tank would just be a joke and how about a cruiser or Battleship task force spawning maybe every 4th time from a port. Fifteen inch shells from 20 miles out each weighing a ton   :aok

One broadside equals 2 x a B24 load.



You just changed the whole subject.

Offline lyric1

  • Skinner Team
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10645
Re: JU-52 ARMED Transport. What say you chaps?
« Reply #50 on: March 16, 2008, 03:44:38 AM »
Took these pictures yesterday at the air force museum in Dayton Ohio. It is a Spanish built plane still looks great though.

Offline trigger2

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1342
Re: JU-52 ARMED Transport. What say you chaps?
« Reply #51 on: March 19, 2008, 12:23:22 AM »
Possibility but other than in axis vs allies has it a role?

In my opinion next plane should be German or Soviet Bomber

Buahahahhaha
I say the FW200 Condor... AGAIN!!! Not only can it bomb, but it has goons! I'm too lazy right now to go look up all the info on it again, but search should turn up results, and I do believe we'd want the C model, as A was civillian and B wasn't so great.
Sometimes, we just need to remember what the rules of life really are: You only
need two tools: WD-40 and Duct Tape. If it doesn't move and should, use the
WD-40. If it shouldn't move and does, use the duct tape.
*TAs Aerofighters Inc.*

Offline swareiam

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3211
Re: JU-52 ARMED Transport. What say you chaps?
« Reply #52 on: March 19, 2008, 07:30:44 AM »
Buahahahhaha
I say the FW200 Condor... AGAIN!!! Not only can it bomb, but it has goons! I'm too lazy right now to go look up all the info on it again, but search should turn up results, and I do believe we'd want the C model, as A was civillian and B wasn't so great.

Point taken Trigger, But let's consider this. HTC generally models the planes based on their widespread usage throughout the war. Reperesenting the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe on every front from the first to the last day of the war, gives the JU-52 a special place in military avaition history. This is not a comparison but that means that Ju-52 would have been in the game before the B-25 and the P-39 for that matter. Herman G. did have choices or he could have had something produced right from fresh ink. But, he didn't he stuck with the JU-52. Someone saw its longterm potential. I think that we should as well. :salute

BTW, PBY Catalina after that. Transport and Bomber that can launch from Ports CVs, and Airfields  :D

Cheers :aok
AKWarHwk of the Arabian Knights
Aces High Scenario, FSO, and Combat Challenge Teams
Don't let your ego get too close to your position, so that if your position gets shot down, your ego doesn't go with it. General Colin Powell

Offline DaddyAck

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
Re: JU-52 ARMED Transport. What say you chaps?
« Reply #53 on: March 23, 2008, 01:25:30 AM »
I still think this plane is a good addition.  But if we are going on historical presence, then yeah He-111 needs in too.  :aok

Offline araiguma

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 55
Re: JU-52 ARMED Transport. What say you chaps?
« Reply #54 on: April 16, 2008, 11:16:28 PM »
 :aok   :aok  for the JU-52/3mg5e, could be a float plane option involved in the hangar loadout screen and the HE-111h5 and h6 variants.

Offline Cthulhu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2463
Re: JU-52 ARMED Transport. What say you chaps?
« Reply #55 on: April 17, 2008, 03:02:19 PM »
Buahahahhaha
I say the FW200 Condor... AGAIN!!! Not only can it bomb, but it has goons! I'm too lazy right now to go look up all the info on it again, but search should turn up results, and I do believe we'd want the C model, as A was civillian and B wasn't so great.

All the Fw200 has going for it is range, and a notoriously weak structure. I want something that catches on fire with little or no warning. :D  How about the He 177? Maybe with Hs293's or Fritz X as perk ordinance. :O Give us that and CV's would be in real trouble.

Do217 would be cool too.
"Think of Tetris as a metaphor for life:  You spend all your time trying to find a place for your long thin piece, then when you finally do, everything you've built disappears"

Offline Motherland

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8110
Re: JU-52 ARMED Transport. What say you chaps?
« Reply #56 on: April 17, 2008, 03:05:29 PM »
The only good thing about the FW200 is that its the only Luftwaffe bomber that is decently armed. It carries less ordnance than the Ju88 and is slower. The He111, on the other hand, is only a bit slower than the 88, carries close to the same bombload, and has a half-decent defensive armament.

Offline Cthulhu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2463
Re: JU-52 ARMED Transport. What say you chaps?
« Reply #57 on: April 17, 2008, 03:55:43 PM »
Calling the Fw200 a "bomber" is really a stretch. Maritime patrol plane is much more accurate. Noone would ever call a P-3C a bomber would they?

The only good thing about the FW200 is that its the only Luftwaffe bomber that is decently armed. It carries less ordnance than the Ju88 and is slower. The He111, on the other hand, is only a bit slower than the 88, carries close to the same bombload, and has a half-decent defensive armament.

Motherland, I'll go way out on a limb and assume you're not familiar with the He177. Once you get past the annoying "burst into flame" thing (which was reduced quite a bit as the war progressed), it eclipses the He111 in every category. It's plenty fast, has respectable defensive firepower,  a pressurized cabin (I think), and a very healthy payload (over 12,000 lbs demonstated operationally during the war). Throw in the ability to carry precision guided ordinance, and you've got a very survival bomber with sufficient payload to do real damage.

In many ways, it's similar to the B-29, with a long, painful development period which eventually produced a very sophisticated airplane. Besides, it's a very cool looking airplane (if you subscribe to the weird is cool school of thought :D).
"Think of Tetris as a metaphor for life:  You spend all your time trying to find a place for your long thin piece, then when you finally do, everything you've built disappears"

Offline Motherland

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8110
Re: JU-52 ARMED Transport. What say you chaps?
« Reply #58 on: April 17, 2008, 04:27:34 PM »
My first reply wasn't really a response to your post, just the thread in general.

But, no, I'm not familiar with the 177. But, I do know that the 111 was produced in greater numbers and played a larger part in the war. Plus, honestly, I think the 177 is smurfy whereas the 111 is among the coolest bombers out there (the engine cowlings are awesome!).
The He111 was used to launch guided anti-ship missiles too, by the way  :aok

I knew I was going to run into trouble with the 'decently armed' statement. What I meant was, out of the Luftwaffes highly produced, main bombers (Ju88, He111, Ju52,.... erm... yeah) the He111 was a bit more cut out for the job defensive-armament wise.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2008, 04:30:26 PM by Motherland »

Offline SKYGUNS

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 419
Re: JU-52 ARMED Transport. What say you chaps?
« Reply #59 on: April 17, 2008, 11:55:09 PM »
i say absolutly, we need a different goon for the game