Give me reasons!!

[2ADoc]

They do look alike if I take both my contacts out and dump chili powder in my eyes and squint real hard.

[bravoa8]

They do look alike if I take both my contacts out and dump chili powder in my eyes and squint real hard.

Can you even see like that?

[2ADoc]

Yea but shooting an ILS is really hard. 

[Tarstar]

(Image removed from quote.)

 

[RaptorL]

Bring On the HE-111's.

[Digr1]

this should help you about the 111

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=he-111+bomber&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=5bxMS7yxNYqm8Aai6sD3DQ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CBkQsAQwAw

[Anaxogoras]

Want a reason ehh?
Fly hurri MkI or a spit MkI in a BoB scenario with 88s as a sub for the 111. Then you will know why.

+1

The Hurricane Mk I might actually be able to catch an He-111.  The Ju-88 is very fast for its time and only equipped a minority of the Luftwaffe's bomber force in 1940.

[Ack-Ack]

Really? these look nothing like each other. (Image removed from quote.) (Image removed from quote.)

Are those images of the same plane?  They really do look alike.


ack-ack

[Anaxogoras]

Poor photo choices.  Wikipedia has photos that make the differences more clear:

[Ack-Ack]

Poor photo choices.  Wikipedia has photos that make the differences more clear:

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

I should have added the [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] tags to my earlier post.

ack-ack

[Krusty]

+1

The Hurricane Mk I might actually be able to catch an He-111.  The Ju-88 is very fast for its time and only equipped a minority of the Luftwaffe's bomber force in 1940.

Problem is the A-1 was used during BOB, but the A-4 was post-BOB. Different engines, different wingspans, less performance, less defensive guns (only 1 rear dorsal in the A-1).

Overall it's like subbing a Ki67 for a Betty, and that's simply not done for the exact same reasons.

We need so many "earlier" bomber, for so many reasons. He-111 is top of the list!

[2ace]

Poor photo choices.  Wikipedia has photos that make the differences more clear:

(Image removed from quote.)


(Image removed from quote.)

yeah,poor photos, i had to leave right after that so i just picked a couple and used them.

[Anaxogoras]

Overall it's like subbing a Ki67 for a Betty, and that's simply not done for the exact same reasons.

Where do you get this kind of idea?   For instance, the wikipedia article on the Ju-88 cites Dressel, Joachim and Manfred Griehl, Bombers of the Luftwaffe, as stating that the A-4 was actually slower than the A-1 due to its longer wingspan and bomb bay bulge.  

Fwiw, I've checked their citations of books that I own, and they've always been accurate.  It's when I see citation needed that I take the information with a grain of salt.

[Krusty]

Less horsepower in the engines, less wing area (less lift, less climb rate, lower ceiling on a plane that already barely gets to 20k when loaded), and from pics I've seen there is no bomb bay "bulge" difference between the two. I've seen pics of both and didn't notice any major changes there.

A-1 would definitely be a lesser plane, compared to the A-4.

[Anaxogoras]

Do you have a source that contradicts Bombers of the Luftwaffe?