A pruposed change to the WGr-21

[Mirage]

I think brown baron was just using external fuel tanks as an example that it costs time and money to drop things from your airplane so that is why they were discouraged from dropping the rocket tubes once empty

[BrownBaron]

What is this from?

AFAIK drop tanks were dropped when empty or when the enemy was sighted, whichever came first.

There were no "explosive bolts" required to drop drop tanks.  Besides, look at the name, drop tanks.
They did not always cooperate, however.


wrongway

From some of the books I have read on the Luftwaffe, it appears that when planes were on the move in areas where it held air-superiority, they would keep their tanks from take-off to landing. This I infer from the obvious wear-and-tear on some tanks. As HiTech stated, they are not exactly one-time-use disposable pieces. Standard procedure for Allied forces were different, I'm sure, as their main priorty was getting their bombers' crippleing payloads on target and get back to friendly skies ASAP, while the German directive was more conservative as vital resources were destroyed.

[SmokinLoon]

It was 8 years ago that HT made that statement that the tubes would not have the option of being dropped.  Perhaps his/their views have changed.

IIRC, there was a statement somewhere back when about "the B29 not ever going to be added" because it would be detrimental to game play.  How times change. 

[curry1]

Boy, I've been reading this board waaay too long.

Searched for "jettisonable"

Found buried in this thread: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,70707.0.html

Edited for content:


That would be a "no" from the developer.

You can tell it's him by the typos. 

Search is very effective if you know what you are looking for.  Like I said, waaay too much time reading here....

wrongway

I don't believe you the search function never works that well.

[AWwrgwy]

It was 8 years ago that HT made that statement that the tubes would not have the option of being dropped.  Perhaps his/their views have changed.

IIRC, there was a statement somewhere back when about "the B29 not ever going to be added" because it would be detrimental to game play.  How times change. 

You find this quote.  I'm pretty sure I can find a "we never said that" from a recent post.

I don't believe you the search function never works that well.

I knew what I was looking for.   

"Search" just narrowed it down.


wrongway

[Lusche]

IIRC, there was a statement somewhere back when about "the B29 not ever going to be added" because it would be detrimental to game play.

Only by players. HTC never said that. The only thing ever being ruled out was the n00k.

 I almost never say never, an exception to that is an atomic bomb.

We've heard time and time again (recently if memory serves) that there is never going to be a B-29.

I don't want to comment on possible outcomes while the poll is still live but that's never been said by anybody at HTC, even in private.  It would be stupid to put something in the poll that we weren't willing to make.  We have said before that we'll never do an atomic bomb.

[guncrasher]

I remember reading the no b29 quote.  about 2 years ago.


semp

[Lusche]

I remember reading the no b29 quote.  about 2 years ago.


semp

I want to see that

[Mirage]

Lol I'm not sure how we got talking about b29s but to keep it a bit on topic it will be interesting to see how effective the WGr-21s will be against it

[AWwrgwy]

I remember reading the no b29 quote.  about 2 years ago.


semp

I want to see that

Me too.

Search all possible variations of B29 or Superfortress by Hitech, Skuzzy, Pyro, Superfly, etc.

Good luck.

Lusche posted the "no we didn't" quote I was thinking of.

Heck, they mentioned the B-29 on the home page forever, didn't they?


wrongway