Ordnance changes in 1.05

[Jigster]

 

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

Fine, let the LW have project Mistletoe.

But let the USAAF have project Aphrodite.

I figure a B-17 loaded to the gills would pack a little more punch. If you haven't heard of it, I suggest looking it up  
Aviation History had good write up a few years ago, might be on www.thehistorynet.com


[This message has been edited by Jigster (edited 11-17-2000).]

[Dowding]

Brady - so basically you want an uber fighter-bomber that carries the ordanance of a lancaster and fights like F4U-C?

Yes, the Stuka was slow and vulnerable. But that isn't a very good argument for not having it. The truth is it was made in large numbers and used on virtually every Axis front.

It is the architypal LW plane.

[brady]

Dowding said:Brady - so basically you want an uber fighter-bomber that carries the ordinance of a Lancaster and fights like F4U-C?----
   
  What did I say that led u to believe that?


Yes, the Stuka was slow and vulnerable. But that isn't a very good argument for not having it. The truth is it was made in large numbers and used on virtually every Axis front.

It is the architypal LW plane.


  True, and I mentioned that I do indeed like the plane,but I feel that it would sit in the hanger a lot that's all.I also feel,that a lot of other countries are lacking a bomber of any type and should get fair billing.

  In short if the Germans half to have a JABO,give them a FW 190 F8,and let the game gods work on a new plane for one of the three countries on the short end of the stick,USSR Japan, Italy,Heck Germany just got a JU 88. I just feel a lot of time and work will go into a plane that will not get a lot of airtime.
  By the way my first love is German planes, I just think fair is fair.

     Brady

[Karnak]

What we need for Jabo, and given both its production numbers and its actual effect on the war it is the only choice, is an Il2-M3.

I'm not very familiar with its loadout options, but I do know that it should have gun options for either 2 23mm cannon or 2 37mm cannon.

The Il2-M3 was one of the most important military aircraft EVER.  They built 42,000 of them and it served in some of the hardest fighting that the world has ever seen.  It is incredibly tough and not too shabby in the speed or maneuverability areas for a ground attack aircraft.  It would add another aircraft to the Russian list.

The Il2-M3 should be at the top, or very near the top, of the list of aircraft to be added.

Sisu
-Karnak

[UncleBuck]

Nawshorn,  I didn't say it was not possible, just do you really think it is safe to launch rockets with the tanks on?  I think there should be a Significant danger of firing them in the game if they are not jettisoned.

                 UncleBuck

[fabrika6]

At this site you can find a foto of a C202 with Underwing pilons.
 www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Arena/8245/ricerche/index.html

[Luke Skywalker]

In Tatooine, Jagdbomber means "fighter-Bomber"...maybe here means a different thing  

I cant understand why people keep calling Ju87, Il2, Il10, Hs129 and all those things "Jabos"...is like calling the Millenium Falcon a TIE fighter!!!!! (jeezus, Han will kill me if he hears me comparing a Stuka with ...er..."that thing"  )

Ju87 was a bomber. In its G version, was an attack plane. Il2 was a bomber. Il10 was a bomber.

I never saw a US navy officer quote calling an Intruder a "fighter Bomber", but I see loads of them calling the F/A-18 just that.

Same with F16s and A-10. Someone here dares to call the Hog a fighter-bomber? I think the difference is quite significant  

So, give the LW lovers a Fw190G8 or F8. With little work you get a new plane, and they will stop their ranting.

so they can start yelling for a jet  




[This message has been edited by Luke Skywalker (edited 11-17-2000).]

[Darth Vader]

Luke...I am your father. Go to your room, you're grounded.

------------------

[Dowding]

Brady - Sorry for jumping to conclusions. It's just that I can't see the point of arguing against a mass-produced A/C just because its performance was a little lacking. I see your point regarding arena usage, but there are already planes that don't get much use. From my experience, I see loads of nikis but very few zeros. I fly mainly the La5, and until recently I rarely saw one.

Give us a stuka with one of those massive tank killing cannons and I'm sure it would be well used.  

However, I would prefer to see an Il-2 first. Am I right in thinking this plane was, like the stuka, pretty useless against a dedicated fighter?

[brady]

 Dowding...I concur completely on the Il-2 point,I had the great fortune to actually put my "paw" on the one at the Paul E Garber facility and it was a religious experience,from what I gather I was very maneuverable at slower speeds,and with a buddy along as a gunner you would be a tough target for any fighter.
 When they added them to FA many(including me) racked up lots O kills do in part to maneuverability and its armor,and gunner, in fact it was so UBER they had to tone it down with at least 2 neutering, to the point that it was actually way under modeled, just so it could stay in the game( another reason I left FA unrealistic flight models for political reasons).

   Brady

[juzz]

Il-2 Type 3M is a much better attack plane than a Ju 87G. The Il-2 is faster at low altitude, and much more armoured. And the Stuka can't carry 2x250kg bombs and 4x132mm rockets. Or 192x2.5kg PTAB anti-tank bomblets.  

[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 11-17-2000).]

[Dowding]

 

another reason I left FA unrealistic flight models for political reasons...

I didn't know that - I'm assuming they modelled Allied (spec. US) planes to be greater than USSR, Axis? At least AH is apolitical when it comes to plane modelling.

 

Or 192x2.5kg PTAB anti-tank bomblets.

Now that sounds good.  

[Sorrow[S=A]]

Dowding:

I don't think you will see an Il-2 here any time soon.

A: The Il-2 is probably the definition of Cannon resistant. The whole plane was built around it's armor. Cannon rounds could rip 3 or 4 square meters of wing apart without knocking the plane down. Destroying flight controls was possible or concentrated fire into wing roots was usually lethal otherwise this plane was a flying tank. Other than that the only way a MG armed plane could kill one was to hit the cockpit vertically at 90 degrees and kill the pilot. And thats with 13mm or AP rounds mind you.

B: It would have the most powerfull cannon and armaments on any fighter in the game. It's 20mm shells had enough penetration to cut a Pzkw IV's turret apart- I have pics of one that is split from the cannon flashing to the top of the turret with about 10-15 penetrations from a Vya cannon. In AH this would be a horrifying gun to face. It would make a C hog look positivly tame. And if your not attacking it from a frontal position it's tail has a 12.5mm MG equal to a .50 cal with a slightly heavier shell. There are few good attack passes possible against it where it cannot defend itself.

C: The Il-2 was NOT a bomber. Nope nope nope. It was a fighter- a ground attack fighter specialty. And as pointed out when unloaded of bombs and rockets (usually around 20% of it's weight) this plane WAS highly manueverable. Oleg maddox at Il-2 (Produced by Maddox games) sent me some info on this when I questioned how his planes were flying in the movies he shot. Clean Il-2's were capable of loops and acrobatics and could both turn and maintain E well at low speeds. Yak-1 pilots and Lagg pilots in mock fights for training found the Il-2 impossible to follow in manuevers. Instead German and finnish pilots preferred sneak attacks against unaware ones or slashing gun passes and disengagement.

Looking at those three the Il-2 would almost be impossible for HTC to model in the game currently. The plane would just totally outbalance the arena like it never did historically. Historically they were always at a disadvantage because they attacked lower ground targets and were usually cought unawares or had to combat with rockets and bombs attached. In AH it would be up high and clean and would HO everything in sight until it ran away using the MG to cover it's bellybutton in the extension.

Sorrow

[Westy]

 IL2 was NOT a fighter. And it was a pig to fly. Just don't get in front of it or it could vaporise you  
 More importantly please don't use FA flight models as the basis for how any aircraft would have been like in WWII.
 IL2 would be great! But if they operate under hostile skies they're dog meat.

 -Westy

[funked]

How anybody could say the Il-2 (which carried bombs INTERNALLY) is not a bomber is a mystery to me.

About the maneuverability:  It had a big old wing.  Il-2 wingloading (Full fuel, ammo, and internal bombs) is about 32 lb/ft^2.  This is equal to or better than many of the fighters in AH.  Once the bombs (400 kg) are gone the wingloading becomes superior to most fighters in AH.  In a very slow turning fight this would be a formidable plane.

Power to weight ratio is about 8 lb/hp which is much worse than any of the AH fighters, and it has a ton of drag.  So it's not going to be any kind of E-fighter or have a great turn rate.  But don't discount the value of a small turn radius in defensive maneuvering.  Can you say "scissors"?  

A good Il-2 pilot/gunner combo will be able to frustrate less-skilled fighter pilots with regularity.