Ordnance changes in 1.05

[funked]

Santa "in LW terms", any single-engine fighter with a bomb on it was a Jabo.
Fw 190A-8 did NOT carry multiple bombs.
P-51, P-47 etc did NOT require special modification to carry bombs.
Yes we need a Fw 190F-8.  But I will still confront you when you say things that are incorrect.

[Wmaker]

Hi Pyro,


   Many JU-88A-4s had 20mm MG FFM-cannon mounted in the nose. It was aimed/fired by the observer/bombadier and when locked it could be fired by the pilot. This thing would be neat when a con would get too confortable turning with the 88...he'd be in for a nasty surprise   ...with the current MG 81 "peashooter" it's like throwing rocks at him   That brings me to the MG 131s...they would also add JU-88's remote chance of fighting back. They were there in numbers in real Ju-88A-4s...would so much like to see them in AH's Ju-88 too!

      Then something about the bomb loadout options...I'm pretty sure what no JU-88A-4
could ever load more than 18 50kg bombs in its bombbay. One could use aft-bombbay with forward internal fueltank but using forward bombbay with aft-internal fueltank wasn't possible because if you installed bombracks to the forward bombbay you had to install them to the aft-bay as well. Anyways, max internal bombload was 900kg of 50kg bombs and only 8 could be housed in the forward-bay
and 10 to the aft-bay.
   Wing's bombracks could hold 2800kg bombload. Inner racks could even take 1800kg bomb (only one 1800kg egg could be carried, 1800x2=3600   )!!! So it would be nice to have *atleast* 1000kg bombs for the inner racks. There was also option for outerwing ETC 500/IX d bombracks carrying 250kg bombs(These racks were mounted almost in wingtips). This option was shown in an illustration discribing Ju-88A-4s loadout options and it's taken from somekind of manual or operating handbook.

   These would be very nice additions for Ju-88 and sure would make me happy!!!  

      
      1Wmaker1
      Lentolaivue 34    

I was coached at Pensacola to never trust the Air Force, by a Navy pilot who had challenged an F-86 squadron at nearby Egland AFB to an encounter at 30,000 feet with the Navy's new Cougar, F9F-8. According to this officer, "Those cheating Air Force guys showed up at 35,000. If we hadn't
been at 40,000, they would have waxed us!" - Tom Nelson

[This message has been edited by Wmaker (edited 11-16-2000).]

[LJK Raubvogel]

 

Originally posted by Dowding:

I've see very few LW types asking for the Stuka, yet many posts demanding a jabo 190. Why is that?

1)Slower than hell
2)Climbs like a rock
3)its armament would make the 202's guns look uber



------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps

[fabrika6]

Pyro I have 2 different sources that give documentation that C202 can carry bombs an fuel tanks

An English publication

“PROFILE PUBLICATION N°28 ,THE MACCHI C202”  (at pag. 5)
Written by Gianni Cattaneo  Published by Profile Publication Ltd. , P.O. Box 26 , 1 a North Street, Leatherhead, Surrey. Printed in 1966 by Hills & Lacy., London and Watford.

And an Italian publication

“REGIA AERONAUTICA , TUTTE LE MACCHINE DELLA  2° GUERRA MONDIALE”

“Royal italian Air force, all the aircraft of WWII “  (at pag. 24 )

Written by Nico Sgarlato  Published by Delta Editrice snc Casella Postale 409 Borgo Regale, 21-43100 Parma Tel. 0039 0521 287883. Printed in 1999.


FabriKA6
1° Gruppo Caccia “ Asso di Bastoni “

[Nashwan]

Will the Typhoon be able to carry 4 rockets as well as the drop tanks? And are the "external tanks" droppable? I seem to remember seeing someone claiming they weren't.

[Jigster]

I know they at least expiremented with one of the FW's and the 1800kg bomb.

Did they ever take one into combat with that huge thing slung on the center pylon?

[Ripsnort]

 

Originally posted by Jigster:

Did they ever take one into combat with that huge thing slung on the center pylon?

No, but take  a look at the JU88 loaded to the gills  with explosives under that FW190! (Mistletoe?)

[BigJoe]

So with the 21cm rocket now being fixed does this mean they're no good for ack?  Then it's time for the true Jagdbombers the "F" and "G" series FW190's because without'em means an A8 will be down to 1 bomb per plane and ammunitions that bounces off most everything on the ground except ack and M3's, thats not fun.  I also believe something that stands a fighting chance after ord has been dropped is needed first like the FW190F/G series.  Or would I be wrong to assume that after a Stuka dropped it's ord has a better chance of escape or defending itself against the hords of Spits, Niki's, 190A5's, P-51's, G10's, C-Hogs, 190A-8's and P47's that will chasing it?  The deck has been stacked with late war monsters in AH alongtime ago, to race a model-T Ford against a Ferrari would be a waste of a an effort no matter how good the intention.  The Stuke will be sitting in the hangar with the rest of the early warbirds we have in AH already.

My thoughts are if AH goes with early warbirds there better be a selection of historical arenas available where they stand a chance of survival.  Without those arenas, early model have no place to go



[This message has been edited by BigJoe (edited 11-16-2000).]

[UncleBuck]

As for the Typhoon carrying four rockets as well as two wing tanks.  Do you really think it is a good idea to fire Flame spewing projectiles that are going to bath a couple hundred gallons of Avgas in flame?  Not to mention if you hook up the extra fuel and rockets would that not  kill your wingloading?

                UncleBuck

[juzz]

Any chance of fixing the Spitfire IX droptank, ie: so it's not a German 300l tank!

And 2x250lb wing bombs for the Spitfire V.

[funked]

Dowding, most of the Luftwaffe's Stuka units converted to the Fw 190F and G by 1944.  The Ju 87 was just not survivable in an environment with 400 mph fighters buzzing around, kind of like AH.  

Hence the wish for the 190 variants.  
They carry just as much ordnance as the Stuka but in a much more survivable platform.
And they were not bad fighters at all.  There were many 190 aces in Stuka and Schlacht units.

[Nashwan]

UncleBuck,
 

[AKDejaVu]

Looks like wing tanks replace 4 of the rockets on the typhoon?

AKDejaVu

[brady]

  I am with the men on the "no stuka" side of the line,not because i don't like it i do,but u need to be careful what u ask for, it will be slow, it will climb painfully slow under load,and it will die fast.It would be cool for historical battles but their are countries in more need of another plane type then Germany,USSR,Japan,Italy, all without a bomber of any kind, and all having worthy planes for this role.
 The F8 would be a better choice,but again do u realize what u are getting...a slower A8 with more armor to protect it against ground fire(ostys will still kill it)and it will be more vulnerable to fighter attack than the A8.
 A side point on ammo... the ammo fired by the MK 103 and the MG151/20's should be tailored to the ground attack role , that is to say more AP ammo than mine shells.
 Also the F8/U2 could cary a 700kg BT 700 torpedo.
 The A5/U14 could cary a LT F5b torpedo on a ETC 502 rack.

  If we most ask for a plane for the luftwaffe, and a new one why not a Me 410, the armament possibilities on it are amassing, and it would be "survivable" in the MA.

     Brady

[Jigster]

Judging by that picture, wouldn't it be possible to load 4 rockets and 2 1000lb bombs?

- Jig

PS You'd have to pretty dumb to light off those rockets with the fuel tanks still on...