ar234 question

[MK-84]

The 425 rpg on all the P-47s is also pure fantasy, I might add.... So it's not the "only" one... but it's still a bad thing.

I dont mean to hijack, but why was the 425rpg available but not usually taken?

[Krusty]

<TANGENT>

It was never taken. It was never a loadout option. The vast VAST majority flew with 8 guns and 267 rpg. However, keep in mind the physical space was larger. The oft-cited "500" (or in our case they got 425 somehow) is theoretical based on space. Even in the earliest state-side testing on B and C models it states "this was ballasted with 300 rpg but we report this will not be the load, and the combat load will be 267 rpg with 6 or 8 guns" -- its on almost every test report that cites 300 rpg or more. Nowhere, ever, has it EVER carried the "500" that is touted on wiki and other sources.

267 was the order of the day. The math on after-combat reports shows some varried in the range of 280-to-310 rounds per gun range, but these were less common. You would find 300-ish RPG on planes loaded with only 6 .50cal guns, as well. Outside of those, 267 was what it took. It's even painted on the gun loading doors on many models (as a text stencil) saying the max load is 267 rpg.

When the focus started shifting from pure fighter to attacker as well, the weapons were prohibited from having more than 267rpg (which was the standard anyways) if ANYTHING was on the underwing racks. When anything was on these racks, acrobatics and hard manuevers were prohibited as well. You could fly level and make dives to release your ord. Strong as it was, that's a lot of force and could seriously damage the wing.

Then in the Pacific you had the P-47N. This plane was tasked with a lot of fighting. Not only was the range used for bomber escorting, but it was loaded out with bombs and rockets to attack ground targets. When this happened, the plane was SERIOUSLY overloaded and could barely get off of island runways. Even when the runays were prepared. It then had to clear trees at the end! Many P-47s flew with even less ammo and guns, 4x .50cal and 200 rpg have been mentioned, but specifically many flew with only 2x .50cal and around 200 rpg to save critical weight. Even so, some fighters killed a good number of Japanese planes after dropping their bombs on target. The guns were strong enough.

P-47Ms were stripped down speed demons. To get the most out of them I've read in more than a few sources over the years that they only had 6x .50cal guns and reduced ammo. They were more than enough to kill with and the performance gains are noticable. From the lightest gun load to the heaviest in AH, the weight difference is nearly 1000lbs. Food for thought.

What we have in-game is a gross mis-use of historic loadouts on the P-47s.

</TANGENT>

[Babalonian]

Keeping on topic with the entirety of this thread, like I'm sure most here are....

WOW Lyric!  What a job. 

I'll be darned, but I guess we have the gun option on the 234 facing the wrong way, if it should even be there at all.

[lyric1]

Keeping on topic with the entirety of this thread, like I'm sure most here are....

WOW Lyric!  What a job. 

I'll be darned, but I guess we have the gun option on the 234 facing the wrong way, if it should even be there at all.

Based off all the info I could find it seems rear facing never happened. If & when this aircraft is updated it could be a very different airframe with options that would be interesting.

[Klam]

Just read this whole thread from beginning to end.
Found it to be an absorbing read.  Not just with the history of the plane but also with the determination and
tenacity of lyric, to dig up and gut his way through an enormous amount of information.


What ever the outcome of changes that surely must take place to the AH version of the ar234
respect is due to lyric for the time spent and impartial presentation of the available facts.

I might just read it all again to make sure you didn't leave anything out

<S>

[Glasher 1st]

Excuse me for replying to this thread several months after the last post has been entered and at length. This is not a post as to whether or not the in-game Ar-234 should or should not have the rear firing guns that it was designed to carry. It's not about my research vs another's as references can be found to support both opinions. This post was sparked by lyric1 stating to me in the MA (after my taking out his Mustang with my Ar-234's rear 20mm guns) that the 20mm's will be removed from the Ar-234 in the next update, "What are you going to do when those guns are gone?" Later followed by an email (via AH) directing me to this and other threads regarding his post of AH's modeling of the Ar-234B, in particular his contributions no doubt.

Having used the Ar-234 in the game since 2006, and introducing it into my Bmr Sqd almost exclusively since 2007, I'd say it's safe to say that I'm pretty well versed in the use or non use of the  Ar-234's rear mounted 20mm guns. It matters not to me how the Ar-234 can be loaded out. If AH has the guns removed or not makes little difference in my deciding to fly the 234 or not. If they do remove the guns, I would hate to be lifting an eyebrow to their reason(s) for it. Although it would seem to me that AH, having multiple models of many aircraft types and their loadouts, then lacking additional available models of other aircraft types like the Ar-234, they may be trying to be somewhat generic in their modeling and/or loadout of the Ar-234. I'll may them. As for lyric1, I respect his playing ability, knowledge of the game and his sense of game community as shown in his sharing in the forums! So please remember that I was asked to come here by lyric1.

looking to the extent and ends lyric1 has gone to eradicate the Ar-234's rear firing guns, it would seem that there is something more going on rather than just modeling accuracy? While having responsibilities outside the game I haven't had to time to peruse every post of lyric1's regarding aircraft/vehicle/boat modeling inaccuracies, but I believe that I have looked enough to see no other effort of lyric1's would near the energy he put into the topic of the rear firing 20mm's in the Ar-234. Is there something personal that would spawn such a crusade? I have noticed no other such efforts of his towards a modeling subject. Maybe he can point one out half it's equal for me?

I only ask why? Why such an effort for this one particular loadout? Many know how low an occurrence of pilots seeing an Ar-234's icon in ratio to other aircraft icons, let alone find themselves anywhere close to a firing position on one. Is it that a higher success rate against the Ar-234 is sought by pulling their teeth? How often have so many pilots, in on an Ar-234 (although a non-perked aircraft has nothing to loose), have pulled away as 20mm's from the Ar-234 came their way and start to ping them, especially if they're in a costly Me-262. Without the 20mms in the Ar-234 would the Me-262 pilots then purposely lift looking for a defenseless Ar-234? Heck, the Ar-234 & Me-262 wouldn't be matched against each other in the first place! Nevertheless, is it likely that a higher success rate against the Ar-234 is be being sought? Or could it be one person seeking the success of singlehandedly changing an aspect of the game?

  Good Hunting

[lyric1]

Excuse me for replying to this thread several months after the last post has been entered and at length. This is not a post as to whether or not the in-game Ar-234 should or should not have the rear firing guns that it was designed to carry It's not about my research vs another's as references can be found to support both opinions. This post was sparked by lyric1 stating to me in the MA (after my taking out his Mustang with my Ar-234's rear 20mm guns) that the 20mm's will be removed from the Ar-234 in the next update, I said the next AR-234B update not the next update. "What are you going to do when those guns are gone?" Later followed by an email (via AH) directing me to this and other threads regarding his post of AH's modeling of the Ar-234B, in particular his contributions no doubt. I also sent you a PM that I was going to send the info for you to read you did not reply so I have to assume you were AFK at the time.

Having used the Ar-234 in the game since 2006, and introducing it into my Bmr Sqd almost exclusively since 2007, I'd say it's safe to say that I'm pretty well versed in the use or non use of the  Ar-234's rear mounted 20mm guns. It matters not to me how the Ar-234 can be loaded out. If AH has the guns removed or not makes little difference in my deciding to fly the 234 or not. If they do remove the guns, I would hate to be lifting an eyebrow to their reason(s) for it. Although it would seem to me that AH, having multiple models of many aircraft types and their loadouts, then lacking additional available models of other aircraft types like the Ar-234, they may be trying to be somewhat generic in their modeling and/or loadout of the Ar-234. I'll may them. As for lyric1, I respect his playing ability, knowledge of the game and his sense of game community as shown in his sharing in the forums! So please remember that I was asked to come here by lyric1.

looking to the extent and ends lyric1 has gone to eradicate the Ar-234's rear firing guns, it would seem that there is something more going on rather than just modeling accuracy? While having responsibilities outside the game I haven't had to time to peruse every post of lyric1's regarding aircraft/vehicle/boat modeling inaccuracies, but I believe that I have looked enough to see no other effort of lyric1's would near the energy he put into the topic of the rear firing 20mm's in the Ar-234. Is there something personal that would spawn such a crusade? I have noticed no other such efforts of his towards a modeling subject. Maybe he can point one out half it's equal for me?

I only ask why? Why such an effort for this one particular loadout? Many know how low an occurrence of pilots seeing an Ar-234's icon in ratio to other aircraft icons, let alone find themselves anywhere close to a firing position on one. Is it that a higher success rate against the Ar-234 is sought by pulling their teeth? How often have so many pilots, in on an Ar-234 (although a non-perked aircraft has nothing to loose), have pulled away as 20mm's from the Ar-234 came their way and start to ping them, especially if they're in a costly Me-262. Without the 20mms in the Ar-234 would the Me-262 pilots then purposely lift looking for a defenseless Ar-234? Heck, the Ar-234 & Me-262 wouldn't be matched against each other in the first place! Nevertheless, is it likely that a higher success rate against the Ar-234 is be being sought? Or could it be one person seeking the success of singlehandedly changing an aspect of the game?

  Good Hunting

Well I have to assume you did not read every post in the two links I provided. So your answer is in this post as to why.



My quest was originally to prove that the guns never pointed up & rearwards as we have in the game that in fact should be pointing down & rearwards as photographic evidence & blueprints & American researchers had found out at the end of WWII. Plus those photos I posted are infact off of the AR-234-C model.

To my surprise after digging about no AR-234-B model ever was fitted with rear guns. Yes they had the ability to as my thread pointed out but they never did.

If you have any photographic evidence of an AR-234-B model with rear facing guns I would very much like to see  them. Even the ARADO AR-234 book I provided you makes no mention of actually fitting the guns on the B model they wanted to planed to but never did. I don't think there is any more conclusive evidence than actual factory documents.

Yes it is my pet peeve & yes I believe the guns should not be there.

If there is proof otherwise I would very much like to see it.


Regards: Rodney.

[Volron]

Based off of the information that I've read to date on this issue (I have read it before when it was 1st going up, but opted to wait to see if more would come forth...then I forgot about it, so I didn't post until now. ) provided by lyric, I would have to say that the guns on the 234 should go.  There has been very little information stating that they were used, only information about mountings created for them.  The only guns used were on a gunpod mounted underneath which were facing forward and only used 4-5 times.


I rather have historical accuracy than fantasy.  Very nice work lyric.

Now get back to making sure we get a ventral gun on the Boston please!

[tunnelrat]

Based off of the information that I've read to date on this issue (I have read it before when it was 1st going up, but opted to wait to see if more would come forth...then I forgot about it, so I didn't post until now. ) provided by lyric, I would have to say that the guns on the 234 should go.  There has been very little information stating that they were used, only information about mountings created for them.  The only guns used were on a gunpod mounted underneath which were facing forward and only used 4-5 times.


I rather have historical accuracy than fantasy.  Very nice work lyric.

Now get back to making sure we get a ventral gun on the Boston please!

Gotta back this up, with as much research as lyric has put into this... I think the AR-234 is now guilty until proven innocent...

Of course, with 0 defensive armament, we have to be looking at a reduction in perk costs right?   

[Karnak]

Of course, with 0 defensive armament, we have to be looking at a reduction in perk costs right?   

Nope.  They didn't increase it when the guns were added.  It spent its first year or two here unarmed.

[Butcher]

P-51D never carried bombs and rockets at the same time and do in Aces High.

Dont see them being removed any time soon.

[Spikes]

I'd be very disappointed if this was removed seeing as there are more historical inaccuracies than I can count on 2 hands in this game.

[tunnelrat]

Nope.  They didn't increase it when the guns were added.  It spent its first year or two here unarmed.

Damnit Karnak... why do you have to already know everything?!

[icepac]

It's funny to see the same guys who won't land gear down or fly with realism arguing about airplane realism in the sim.

[tunnelrat]

It's funny to see the same guys who won't land gear down or fly with realism arguing about airplane realism in the sim.

Won't land gear down?