I might be wrong so please dont flame...

[Nefarious]

Ok correct me if i am wrong..

Did the Ta-152 see service in WW2?

I thought it never saw service and total production never saw over 10 aircraft?

well if i am right (i really doubt it) then why add this aircraft to the planeset?

my apoligies to those i offended by making this statement for i am not an expert in Aircraft of the Luftwaffe

[Kieren]

You would be wrong. It did serve, and it did see action. The correct question might be "what impact did it have". This is where the LW jump on you comparing it to the F4U-1C.

I say it is a fine addition, and about as valid as the 1C or N1K2-J FWIW.

[Nefarious]

thanks...

[Kieren]

Just did some refresher research, and the production run appears to be about 150. No group was completely converted to the type, though a few squadrons were. They served as base defense for the 262 fields. Most were destroyed on the ground.

All above info from Green's text.

[Nath-BDP]

 

Just did some refresher research, and the production run appears to be about 150. No group was completely converted to the type, though a few squadrons were. They served as base defense for the 262 fields. Most were destroyed on the ground.
All above info from Green's text.

You just covered the two biggest myths concerning the Ta 152. First of all it NEVER operated as 'base defense' for Me 262s. Those were Doras.

Secondly, Approximatly 60 Ta 152Hs were completed, 3 of these being H-1s with GM 1 and MW 50, the former were H-0 pre-production models without the latter and less fuel tankage, which made it about 400 kg lighter than the H-1.

The Ta 152 operated with Stab and III/JG 301 and was first delivered on January 27th '45, the 3 H-1s that were built probably saw service with JG 301, we know that atleast 1 or 2 did.

------------------
Nath_____
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"


A captured Bolshevik pilot once stated, "In battle, the fighters with the green hearts are generally in the minority. But when they're there, things realy heat up. They're all aces!"

[CavemanJ]

guess this questions belongs here, goes well with the topic.... so someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Dinnae Pyro once post that neither production numbers nor seeing service were a prerequisite for a kite appearing in AH?  Or maybe it was HT?  I seem to recall seeing that from one or the other somewhere.  Might've been in the arena during a Q&A....

So I can't help but wonder why everyone always cites numbers produced and whether or not a particular model saw combat when HT and Pyro are gonna add whatever kite they want to add, based on whatever merits they see it as 'fit to add to AH' on.

[Nefarious]

yes ive heard that statment.

maybe the next perk bomber we get will be a YB-49 or a XB-70

[AKDejaVu]

I can understand that it wouldn't matter to Pyro nor HT if the plane never saw service... but where do they get the data for it?

AKDejaVu

[Kieren]

Those "myths" were pretty much taken directly from William Green's book. What are your sources?

As for citing numbers, the original poster requested (more-or-less) proof of service. That is what I found on a cursory search. I don't know what Pyro uses to include planes, though like AK I do wonder where data would be found to model one.

[Vermillion]

Kieren, William Green's book while in some ways an excellent source, is also in some ways more error prone than a 1st year high school typing class (at least it feels that way   ) For instance the whole "MG151/15 15mm cannon in the 109K4" crap, came originally from his book too.

Nath is correct, the information comes directly from a book that used original RLM, Luftwaffe, and FockeWulf factory information and test data. It goes as far as too detail each and every werk number ever assigned to Ta152 aircraft and prototypes, and also details what happened to most of them.

I'm at work and don't have the exact title of the book (which I own and it is excellent), but I will post it later if Nath or somebody else doesn't.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

[Kieren]

Oh, I am aware that Green isn't the definitive source- I merely wanted to know the source of the information Nath was citing. I also wanted to make it clear I wasn't just spouting some rhetorical nonsense I made up. I don't have any RLM documentation, so whatever you have will be appreciated.

[Curly]

"maybe the next perk bomber we get will be a YB-49 or a XB-70 "

 Don't be a stiff.  No where did they say they would model proto-types or aircraft that did not see regular production.

 Curly

[CavemanJ]

 

Originally posted by Curly:
"maybe the next perk bomber we get will be a YB-49 or a XB-70 "

 Don't be a stiff.  No where did they say they would model proto-types or aircraft that did not see regular production.

 Curly

erm... wouldna prototypes be classified in the "what-if" catagorey, which (I think it was) Pyro said they would add some as they saw fit?

 

[pzvg]

Maybe HTC will get a wild hair and add some WWII "combat" aircraft, insteada all this "Made in Roswell"(Tm) stuff.
While I do dream of every single plane ever built being available, I see that adding enough of these late war super rides will totally kill that, I'd like to see French a/c,Polish a/c,Dutch a/c. but they can't survive in the post war air environment and when you're talking 'bout these last minute walkon actors of WWII, that's what they are,even the ones that saw limited combat are basically postwar a/c that got started a little early, Don't shout me down folks, by all means have your cake,but let some of us eat too, or are ya that frickin' greedy?

------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"

[Kieren]

Well, I always am happy with more, and agree that the chosen direction would appear to have made backward progression on the plane list unworkable- assuming the perk system doesn't somehow address this issue. I guess I am confused as to what I want more.

On one hand we have had WB and AW; we have had many early war rides. We have never had an arena set with so many late-war rides (at least, not that I know of). OTOH I like the early war stuff, and fly them occasionally. Personally they are almost universally more fun to fly (that is, you feel like you are flying, not just managing a weapons system).

In the end I find that I will find fun in whatever is provided, at least to the best of my ability to do so.