ar234 question

[lyric1]

You say 1979 but Price's job in 1945 was getting this information. I think he had better access to more people and information than is available now.
If you have evidence and you say it must be wrong because it doesn't fit the theory then your theory may be wrong. It also makes sense that some B models would have the guns prior to the decision that all the C models would have them.

We can at least agree that most of the 234s did not have the guns. 

Well since we want to talk about Price here is one of his books.

http://nazi.org.uk/military%20pdfs7/TheLastYearOfTheLuftwaffe-May1944-May1945.pdf

Go to page 34.

Here is the heading on that page.


You know what I agree 100% with Price's book & the above statement.

However this is how the confusion on rear guns continues.







He never states what actual model has rear guns. This book was published in 2001 over the years from book to book for what ever reason he seems to get vague on model specifics.

My thread clearly shows the only late model 234's with rear guns are the C model.

Photos show this on the C model.

Don't you think the first AR-234b model with rear facing guns would have been photographed at some point just like they did on the C model? 

[Scherf]

Don't know if this has been referred to elsewhere in the thread, but FWIW Eric Brown's "Wings of the Luftwaffe" has this cutaway:

[FLS]

Lyric you do realize that the info you just posted is headed 234B? It describes a jet with 2 engines rather than the 4 on the C model? He doesn't say some late production models had 4 engines? That various pics you posted in the thread state plainly that "not all the 234b's had the rear guns" which means that some of them did and they also state plainly that the 234b had rear guns mounted? One book you listed (and recommended I read) states plainly that the second production 234B had rear guns?



If you can find one statement I made in my first post to this thread that isn't correct I'd like to see it.  

As far as pictures, I'm sure there were many that didn't survive the war and there may be many that simply aren't online or in books. Lack of proof is not proof of anything. Nothing you've posted proves that no 234b's had the rear guns. I can see why people who thought all the 235b's had rear guns may have had their world rocked a little but there is no reason to pull the guns off of the AH 234b. Since most B models did not have the guns you can justify removing them but there is nothing that requires it. It would make sense to offer no guns as a loadout option.


Scherf that same cutaway is in Ethel and Price's book. Krusty told me that Erik Brown is not a reliable source but he still hasn't furnished the proof he said he had somewhere.  

[lyric1]

Lyric you do realize that the info you just posted is headed 234B? It describes a jet with 2 engines rather than the 4 on the C model? He doesn't say some late production models had 4 engines? That various pics you posted in the thread state plainly that "not all the 234b's had the rear guns" which means that some of them did and they also state plainly that the 234b had rear guns mounted? One book you listed (and recommended I read) states plainly that the second production 234B had rear guns?



If you can find one statement I made in my first post to this thread that isn't correct I'd like to see it.  

As far as pictures, I'm sure there were many that didn't survive the war and there may be many that simply aren't online or in books. Lack of proof is not proof of anything. Nothing you've posted proves that no 234b's had the rear guns. I can see why people who thought all the 235b's had rear guns may have had their world rocked a little but there is no reason to pull the guns off of the AH 234b. Since most B models did not have the guns you can justify removing them but there is nothing that requires it. It would make sense to offer no guns as a loadout option.


Scherf that same cutaway is in Ethel and Price's book. Krusty told me that Erik Brown is not a reliable source but he still hasn't furnished the proof he said he had somewhere.  

OK you want to use that book again as the source as I said in this thread some of the older books are not correct I think the one your quoting is one of them.

Lets look at this page of the book shall we it is a page before your post.








How many of these B-1'were made?

Answer? Zero,none never happened.

Here are the facts.





Who is right?
Some one has written info in a book that is not correct.

Again we can go round robin all day with the dated single source.
As I said I have purchased the book you have & should be here in a few days.
I will read it & compare it to my sources.
Are you willing to purchase the book I recommended & at least consider other options?

If not as I said before we shall agree to disagree.

[FLS]

What about the 234B info you just posted that you think refers to the 4 engine C model? It clearly states
that some were armed and obviously refers to the B model.  You proved yourself wrong and you're still
arguing with me. 

[lyric1]

What about the 234B info you just posted that you think refers to the 4 engine C model? It clearly states
that some were armed and obviously refers to the B model.  You proved yourself wrong and you're still
arguing with me. 

Already answered that before.

So I take it your not going to buy the book I recommended?

[lyric1]

Don't know if this has been referred to elsewhere in the thread, but FWIW Eric Brown's "Wings of the Luftwaffe" has this cutaway:

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

That is an Arado drawing.
Part of the problem why people are convinced they had the guns.

[Scherf]

I have to say I truly doubt that comes from Arado. Otherwise, don't have a dog in this fight.

[lyric1]

I have to say I truly doubt that comes from Arado. Otherwise, don't have a dog in this fight.

It is based off of an Arado drawing.

I have seen the German original I just can't find it.

I do have a single page English version not as detailed.

[FLS]

Already answered that before.

So I take it your not going to buy the book I recommended?

Your answer that it refers to the C model is unsupportable.

The books that support your theory are correct and the books that don't are wrong.  I get that.   

[lyric1]

Your answer that it refers to the C model is unsupportable.


The books that support your theory are correct and the books that don't are wrong.  I get that.   

C model is supported by other posts in this thread/photos/Arado documents/AR-234 pilots & their statements/books.

I bought your book I am willing to read it & draw conclusions based off what I find & will compare to other sources.

Are you willing to buy & look at other books & do the same?

If not we have no more to say to each other on this matter.

[FLS]

I agree with you that the C model had the rear guns.

You didn't buy my book. You bought a book you were interested in. I have no interest in the book you mentioned.

You posted information on the 234B, labeled as such, which shows your theory of no rear guns on any 234B is incorrect.

You posted good info but your conclusion needs work. I believe you'll come around. 

[Butcher]

Lyric showed his source and information, I see no other information that says otherwise (with source), I went through countless books on the Ar-234, I see nothing that shows proof the 234 carried rear guns.
Frankly I was kind of shocked I didn't notice this first, however since it was added in Aces High I never really looked into it, Lyric brought the proof to the table and information.

I see no proof otherwise. I proved this in the OTHER ar-234 thread, the P51-D mustang I was told countless times it did carry both 1,000lbs and rockets, why would it carry this setup, however in Korea (how many years after WW2?) was it carrying such a reduced load?
I showed my source and information, people will continue to deny it without showing proof otherwise.

[lyric1]

I agree with you that the C model had the rear guns.

You didn't buy my book. You bought a book you were interested in. I have no interest in the book you mentioned.

You posted information on the 234B, labeled as such, which shows your theory of no rear guns on any 234B is incorrect.

You posted good info but your conclusion needs work. I believe you'll come around.  

If I find evidence that says otherwise that I can verify I would come around.

Ultimately HTC will have the final say if & when this aircraft is up for a remodel & what is done with it.

It maybe years before we find out for sure as to what they do.

Shame you won't look at another book to at least explore other options.

[FLS]

I'll be happy to look at the book. I have no interest in buying it.
I quoted and read the part available on google. It was enough.
Then you said it wasn't reliable because it proved you wrong.
Didn't you notice it was the same book? 

Now that you've moved on to personal insults you've basically conceded the argument.
We're done.