Author Topic: Ju88-?? (Read 707 times)

SKurj · « **on:** October 14, 2000, 12:17:00 AM »

Ok, I know i've mentioned this elsewhere but...

Whats the point in adding the A4 version of the 88? And even at that I can't find ANY data on the A4 with 5 MG 81's. All i can find are two 131's and two 81's or one 131, and 4 81's..
Give us the C2 one 20mm MG FF cannon and 3 MG 17's in solid nose and one MG 15 rr of cockpit or better yet.. C6a 3 MG FF's and 3 MG 17's in nose and a rr MG 131...

There are a couple of benefits to the A4: glass nose permitting level drops, and better rear firepower; though i feel the increased frontal firepower of either the C2 or C6 would improve the AC immensely. Additionally the C6 had a 311 mph top speed (18 mph faster than A4) at higher altitude and a higher ceiling.

Just my thoughts...

SKurj

juzz · « **Reply #1 on:** October 14, 2000, 01:09:00 AM »

Ever heard of scenarios? The Ju 88A-4 is versatile. It can carry lots of little bombs, big bombs, it can carry torpedoes, it can dive bomb... all a C can do is shallow angle dives with small bombs, and strafing.

Fishu · « **Reply #2 on:** October 14, 2000, 01:21:00 AM »

This Ju-88 A-4 that HTC modelled, is early production series, of those first A-4s, not the late one or modified with field conversion kits when 13mm was added for A-4.

Should that be surprising from HTC? no

I wonder why there isn't option for full 7.92mm and 1-2 13mm option, when it is very true for A-4.
It shouldn't be hard when you think that Spitfrie IX has 4x.303 and 2x.50 option, as well as C.205 has 2x7.7mm <-> 2x20mm.

There is no reason why there shouldn't be Ju-88 A-4's historically rightful armament.
With current mid/late war sets, its even more horrifying to have early production model without option for later production options. (A-4.. it had gun difference on early/late models)

SageFIN · « **Reply #3 on:** October 14, 2000, 11:02:00 AM »

A Ju88 with a higher top speed and better armament might work better than the B25 we now have and thus won't probably be implemented. Ju88's would still be easier to gun down though.

------------------
---
SageFIN

"The wolves are gathering, the stars are shifting...
come, join us in the hunt!"
---

Karnak · « **Reply #4 on:** October 14, 2000, 12:12:00 PM »

While I'd like to see the gun options for the Ju88A-4, I don't see that the light gun option would be used at all. Only ecentrics like me take the .303s in the Spit IX.

I would like the Ju88A-4 to have its bigger guns.

Sisu
-Karnak

funked · « **Reply #5 on:** October 16, 2000, 01:24:00 AM »

Fishu with your remark you probably assured HTC will ignore this thread...

juzz · « **Reply #6 on:** October 16, 2000, 01:58:00 AM »

My only gripe is with the dull paintjob. How about some nice yellow theatre markings to dress it up a bit? Oh, and a C-4/6 and S-1 too plz.

Fishu · « **Reply #7 on:** October 16, 2000, 03:08:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by funked:
Fishu with your remark you probably assured HTC will ignore this thread...

Do you think so? hmm..
Got to begin telling about lacks of allied equiptment then, perhaps we'll see allies flying world war 1 kites then.

Hristo · « **Reply #8 on:** October 16, 2000, 03:54:00 AM »

I like this guy !!

And I have to agree with him

. With every LW plane added there is that little "...but..." attached.

Would Bodenplatte scenario finally help the Dora see the AH skies ?

Funked, I believe HTC ignores threads by posters' names. Some of us deserved that privilege long ago. Does that mean we are wrong ?

funked · « **Reply #9 on:** October 16, 2000, 06:26:00 AM »

Quote

And even at that I can't find ANY data on the A4 with 5 MG 81's.

The Ju 88D at the USAF museum (photo recce variant of A-4) has this exact armament.

Most of the images I have of the A-4 show it with only the fixed/free pilot's MG 81 in the nose.

The only A-4 armament I've seen for the bombardier is a single MG 15. There were some Ju 88A-4 with an MG FF in the forward part of the gondola but this modification required removal of the bombsight.

I've yet to encounter an image of a Ju 88 with an MG 131 in the rear of the gondola. In fact most of the images I have show no aft gondola armament at all. When there is armament shown, it is invariably the twin MG 81 mount.

I wonder if the MG 131 in the rear of the gondola is not just another William Green fantasy like the mythical pair of MG 151's in the cowl of the Me 109?

C-4 would be great as I have pointed out repeatedly over the last few months. But I definitely think the A-4 was a good starting point because of the level bombing capability. Also the A-4 could carry a pair of rather large torpedoes which will come in handy in the next version.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-16-2000).]

Nath-BDP · « **Reply #10 on:** October 16, 2000, 06:39:00 AM »

Why C4?? Atleast give LW the best Ju88C nightfighter variant. ;P

The C-6c nightfighter (C6 was the most manufactured variant of the C series). 3 MG 151/20 with 360 rounds installed as one int he nose and two in ventral tray, three 7.92 mm MG 17 foward-firing with 2,800 rounds in the nose and two schrage Musik (shrill music, i.e. Jazz) 2 Mg 151/20 obliquely forward and upward firing with 400 rounds and one 13mm MG 131 trainable rearward firing machine gun with 750 rounds in cockpit rear.

Also carried the latest and best radar.

Hrmm also how about the G?

389 mph at 29k with MW 50.

4 20mm with 200 rounds per gun in the ventral tray, and a shrage Musik with 400 rounds and one 13mm reaerward-firing mwith 500 rounds in cockpit rear.

The G was spawned from the obviousness that the C6 was going to be underpowered soon because of the addition of new equipment and thus have bad performance.

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

IV.(Sturm)/JG 3 "Udet"

[This message has been edited by Nath-BDP (edited 10-16-2000).]

funked · « **Reply #11 on:** October 16, 2000, 06:53:00 AM »

Nath a night fighter would be neato but there's no night in AH. C-4 was a true Zerstörer and not a specialized nightfighter like the C-6.

In the AH tactical environment (lots of ground vehicles) it would be more useful than the C-6. The payload capacity was used for bombs, guns, ammo, and fuel, instead of things like radar and upward firing guns that wouldn't be worth squat in our game.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-16-2000).]

Nath-BDP · « **Reply #12 on:** October 16, 2000, 07:33:00 AM »

Well if we want a Zerstorer I'd vote for the Me 110 G-4 or -6 since they saw more Zerstorer action against Viermot than Ju88 C4s.

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

IV.(Sturm)/JG 3 "Udet"

[This message has been edited by Nath-BDP (edited 10-16-2000).]

Nath-BDP · « **Reply #13 on:** October 16, 2000, 07:35:00 AM »

btw Funked, I was hoping to get a nightfighter variant of the Ju88 along with the A4 so I could do a night scenario with Lancs but it turned out that we only got the A4.

It would be nice to have one for such scenarios.

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

IV.(Sturm)/JG 3 "Udet"

[This message has been edited by Nath-BDP (edited 10-16-2000).]

funked · « **Reply #14 on:** October 16, 2000, 07:43:00 AM »

Of course it would be nice. I think that's why HTC chose the Ju 88A-4 as a starting point - there were several different variants all based on that same airframe. However I believe Natedog and Superfly are tied up right now with the naval vessels for 1.05. So it's going to be a while.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-16-2000).]