German Heavy Bomber

[wild949]

And the B-24 can carry 8000lbs, If you think about it and use the word "heavy" then the Lancaster is the only "heavy" bomber in the game is you describe heavy as in the bomb load.

[Stryker]

germany did have a plan to build a 4 engine(heavy) bomber.. but one of their top rankin ppl decided it would take up to much resources building these.. and that they could have 2-3 twin engined ones for what it'd take to build 1 4 engine one..

[wild949]

Exactly!!!!

[gyrene81]

Wouldn't the HE-111 (including the H11) and the DO-17z be much more appropriate? Much higher production numbers...why they don't exist and yet is strange.

[Anaxogoras]

Wow, that was quite a masterful troll there earlier.  He hooked a couple of ya good and proper, too.

[Sakai]

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,69958.15.html

Essentially, no.

That plane was in development from 1938 to 1945 and was shelved as a total failure and waste of resources with the only hopes for it's being serviceable pinned on variants that never saw combat (e.g., the A7).  While many have tried in recent years to recast it as "misunderstood", that is, uhhhmmmm, less than accurate.  The Germans did everything they could to make it work and after 7 years of development said "well, ok, that was a wasted effort."  As late as 1945 Heinkel was, even after being ordered to stop, trying to show off a 4-engined version that might have been a useful bombing patform.  He called the twin nacelle version "that cursed 177" as I recall.  Since he designed it, I reckon he knew something about it.  

Its service record as a Bomber is so insignificant as to be laughable, it's only real use was as a transport, then turned into cannon-equipped raider/strafer.  No real service record of note exists as abomber with few raids and even fewer sucesses.  That is to say, at the end, when desperate to stem Ivan's rush, like 300-400 of them rotting on Tarmacs because of their uselessness were shipped to the Eastern Front to use first as transports then as ground attackers.  If Germany had possessed 400 serviceable Gotha bombers from WWI they'd have shipped them to Russia for the same uses. I don't think any flew to speak of after Summer 1944 did they?  One bombing mission they sent like 14 to bomb England (14 aircraft, sound like a raid or a trial?), ten caught on fire returned/never lifted off, the remaining few dive-bombed a pasture. 

Loss of coolant was fatal, and arguably fatal far sooner than on other WWII AC. If the fragility of that AC is modeled, the hue and cry and whining about it's worthlessness will be immense, causing everyone to want something serviceable like the Do-217 instead.  I would say:

Skip point A and go straight to modeling the excellent, sturdy, workmanlike Do-217.  More AC built, wider use, vastly superior in level and dive bombing recorded use.  8k loadout, fighter variants available,  . . .

Simply put, no honest or reasonable comparison would select the 177 over the 217.

Cheers,

Sakai

[Boozeman]

While I agree that the Do217 should be a higher priority than the He177, i strongly disagree with your reasoning to skip it because of it's combat record and the difficulties it had. Those have ZERO relevance in our perfect little AH cartoon world, where everythings works beautifully and flawlessly until it's shot to pieces.   

[Sakai]

While I agree that the Do217 should be a higher priority than the He177, i strongly disagree with your reasoning to skip it because of it's combat record and the difficulties it had. Those have ZERO relevance in our perfect little AH cartoon world, where everythings works beautifully and flawlessly until it's shot to pieces.  

I disagree.

If we accept that postulate for the He-177 it means a plane for which only the hoped for potential and paper specs can be modeled.  Why limit it to the He-177?  Why not model every aircraft’s "hoped for" abilities, whether the actual plane in combat usage was inferior to those, or superior to those?  All meaningful field modifications of aircraft become irrelevant, all actual usage data is not factored in.  

Model the Fairey Battle, after all the theoretical applications are there . . .

For example, this means you have to re-model the P-39 so that relative to all it's peers it performs like Bell wanted it to, not as it actually did.

Problem with the He-177 is that it essentially was produced with all warts, meaning no successful variant served to provide us with a meaningful understanding between the realm of “what is expected” and what really occurred.  Another example, toughness cannot be rendered by design but only after a measure of combat effectiveness/durability.  How do we model that for the 177?

And no, the game does not simplistically approximate “perfect conditions at all times for all AC”.  It approximates the serviceable aircraft which successfully completed combat missions at their best conditions (conditions which give no favor to any one AC but benefit all AC equally by being optimalized).  So while it is not “historically accurate” to model a Ki-84 with American-produced aviation fuel, it is historically accurate to model the highly successful Ki-84 because it functioned in its intended environment to a reasonable degree of expectation relative to its design.  This was never, ever achieved with the He-177.

There is a difference between strict historical accuracy and historical fantasy.  The Frank on US fuel is an example of not meeting the former, the He-177 could only meet the standards of the game under the latter.  

The problem is, you have the Do-217 which excedes expectations, and could be modeled to reflect that because those findings were realized, not theoretical, or you have the He-177 which never met expectations, yet everyone wants it modeled as a pristine realization of the design—even though the designer himself said it was crap.  If we model the He-177 off its desired outcome, do we model the 217 as less a plane than it actually was to reflect the desire for specification-based modeling?

[Nemisis]

They just borrowed the Italians heavy bomber.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaggio_P.108

+1

[Motherland]

They just borrowed the Italians heavy bomber.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaggio_P.108

All 24 of them?

[Boozeman]

I disagree.

If we accept that postulate for the He-177 it means a plane for which only the hoped for potential and paper specs can be modeled.  Why limit it to the He-177?  Why not model every aircraft’s "hoped for" abilities, whether the actual plane in combat usage was inferior to those, or superior to those?  All meaningful field modifications of aircraft become irrelevant, all actual usage data is not factored in.  


Model the Fairey Battle, after all the theoretical applications are there . . .

For example, this means you have to re-model the P-39 so that relative to all it's peers it performs like Bell wanted it to, not as it actually did.

I never asked for fantasy specs, I am sure there is enough legit data to model the He177 how it acutally was. 


Problem with the He-177 is that it essentially was produced with all warts, meaning no successful variant served to provide us with a meaningful understanding between the realm of “what is expected” and what really occurred.  Another example, toughness cannot be rendered by design but only after a measure of combat effectiveness/durability.  How do we model that for the 177?

I think you are greatly exaggerating this - by that standard, the Ta152 would fall in the same token

And no, the game does not simplistically approximate “perfect conditions at all times for all AC”.  It approximates the serviceable aircraft which successfully completed combat missions at their best conditions (conditions which give no favor to any one AC but benefit all AC equally by being optimalized).  So while it is not “historically accurate” to model a Ki-84 with American-produced aviation fuel, it is historically accurate to model the highly successful Ki-84 because it functioned in its intended environment to a reasonable degree of expectation relative to its design.  This was never, ever achieved with the He-177.

It does. If we translate that statement into RL, it would mean that approximately none of the AC we have right now would ever had mechanical faiures whatsoever. HiTech once stated that he does not want to inculde random mechanical failures for gameplay reasons.

There is a difference between strict historical accuracy and historical fantasy.  The Frank on US fuel is an example of not meeting the former, the He-177 could only meet the standards of the game under the latter.  

I think you are stretching it a bit too far. There are no "what if's" in case of the He177 - or do you doubt that it could not reach the actually tested speed and payloads? 

The problem is, you have the Do-217 which excedes expectations, and could be modeled to reflect that because those findings were realized, not theoretical, or you have the He-177 which never met expectations, yet everyone wants it modeled as a pristine realization of the design—even though the designer himself said it was crap.  If we model the He-177 off its desired outcome, do we model the 217 as less a plane than it actually was to reflect the desire for specification-based modeling?

Again, model the 217 as it was and model the 177 as it was - to the most accurate data available - then let the players decide which to pick.

[Sakai]

Boozeman:

No, I don't think I'm stretching it, I think the stretching comes from people trying to rejuvenate the service history of this bomber, often tossing out data as if it it translates into historical fact or saying "I'm sure data exists."  There are dedicated He-177 freaks, and people who want to cover it in glory, but that flies in the face of historical fact more than any aspect of the game, that's my point:  it out games the game to model it as desired by those asking for a German heavy. 

The Ta-152 doesn't make it on numbers, in terms of performance versus design, it does (it was a successful design).  Same for the Me-163.  I'd favor not having a Ta-152 or Me-163 in the game, or having them in special late war arenas in limited numbers only.  They were modeled long before several planes with long service records and great historical impact (e.g., the He-111) which I personally disagree with, however, I think those filled specific performance gaps for the game--something the He-177 does not, and never did.

Folks assume that because 1000 were made and it was developed throughout the war, coming online in 1942, it makes it a viable aircraft.  Contrast it with other planes with difficult development or reputation issues though, like the SB2C.  The Helldiver was an effective plane that flew operationally for a sustained period and had, through engineering or training, enough issues resolved to be viable.  The He-177 is a "what if" plane because they did not resolve these issues, it has no operational history of any significance, and the projected use in the game is absolutely missing from it's historical use.  It was used more as a transport than it was as a bomber for crying out loud, how could anyone justify it being modeled on its hoped for performance and postulated ability in a bombing role?

I'm not against modeling it ever, just not at this point and not as the best German heavy because there is no data existing that indicates it was the best German bomber except on paper, and that's only a maybe.  

So, by no criteria for inclusion outside of "they built them, and they flew, sort of" can I see it being acceptable at this time.  When folks say "build it anyway" I cringe because I think of all the other gaps in the planeset/vehicle set/gameplay those resources could be devoted to.

Cheers,

Sakai

[Sakai]

All 24 of them?

They made about 100 or so, they were flown to wearing out though.  In all reviews the P-108 was a serviceable and well-made aircraft that was capable of fulfilling its missions.  

The same cannot be said of the He-177.

[Galland9]

 I started this in hopes to find support in more german bombers. I read, I know the failures of the aircraft I put forth. I just have a love of German aircraft, not spefictly the 177. I like the 217 also it was my 2nd choice but I picked the 177 because of payload and defence. I lean away from the 111 because payload is like the 88's if i remember right. I just would like to see a better varity then 10 of same type.

[Chalenge]

That's an arbitrary number. By that number, both B17s and B24s were "medium" bombers.

Even a number of "medium" British bombers carried 8k to 14k (Manchester comes to mind).

Heck... if 8K is the limit, the ONLY country that carried more than 8k of conventional ord on any bomber would be Great Britain. [EDIT: Discounting the He177 because it was almost entirely used for testing glided bombs and external weapons, wasn't used as a de facto bomber much.]

That would be incorrect your right. The B-25 and B-26 are Medium Bombers. Both the B-17 and B-24 are Heavy Bombers. The B-29 is a Very Heavy Bomber and later there was even a Very Very Heavy Bomber.