190a8 Rockets

[infowars]

The rails were jettison-able to reduce the horrible drag they cause...

Thanks 

[Pigslilspaz]

That was only a last ditch thing as I remember, same with the ejecting landing gear on the Stuka

[IrishOne]

this topic has already been beaten to death.    we aren't getting jettisonable a2a 190 rawkets 

[Karnak]

The rails were jettison-able to reduce the horrible drag they cause...

Thanks 

Pyro said that it wouldn't be done due to it being intended for emergencies in reality and would be done almost every time the rockets were used in AH.

[IrishOne]

Pyro said that it wouldn't be done due to it being intended for emergencies in reality and would be done almost every time the rockets were used in AH.

exactly, and his point is a very valid one

[M0nkey_Man]

Make them pay perks if they ditch it

[morfiend]

 The rocket tubes use explosive bolts to jettison! This is one of the reasons for "emergency use only",I would assume some damage could occur during this process or even the possibility that not all of the bolts would "release" and since random malfunctions arent modeled I personally dont think it should be included.

   On the otherhand,it would be nice to not have the drag penalty for carrying the AA rockets, it just wouldnt be fair!




      

[Krusty]

You want rockets with little drag penalty, lobby for the R4M rockets!

[LLogann]

Pretty sure the Luftwaffe only had one incident (during testing) of catastrophic wing damage (broke in two).  Most of the details we have on it are from Allied sources and they (we) have a tendency for spreading false propaganda. 

The rocket tubes use explosive bolts to jettison! This is one of the reasons for "emergency use only",I would assume some damage could occur during this process or even the possibility that not all of the bolts would "release" and since random malfunctions arent modeled I personally dont think it should be included.

   On the otherhand,it would be nice to not have the drag penalty for carrying the AA rockets, it just wouldnt be fair!

      

I agree (again) with Krusty on this one.  PLUS....  If you are in an A8, do you really care about THAT part of your maneuver issues?

[Tank-Ace]

+1

We already do so much crap that never happened (or happened only rarely) on an hourly basis.

[LLogann]

That actually makes yo a -1

just sayin   

[Tank-Ace]

its double negative day, so its still a +1  .

Show me when carriers opperated within 6000yds of their target.

Show me when single lancasters flew at 4000ft into an area with air incapability.

show me when single tanks would assult an airbase

show me when an airbase was close enough to the front to come under ground attack

When you show me all those, I'll withdraw my +1.

[Rob52240]

Lets keep Aces High Realism at a level which allows us to still call it a simulation.

[Krusty]

Tank: I could kill 2 of those birds with 1 stone, but that's another topic.

The explosive bolts were explosive, but they weren't blowing the wing off to get the job done. They simply blew out the bolts or the struts keeping the steel tubes in place. Then the tubes fell off. Explosive bolts were (I think) common and were used to blow off Luftwaffe canopies on some aircraft. That's not an issue really.

Llogan: The A8 is really the one that needs to worry the most. I'd much rather take WGr21s on the A5 or on a 110G simply because they don't suffer as much. The A-5 is lighter and the 110G has a larger wing area to take the weight. The A-8 is really over weight in this game now so those WGrs make it flounder badly. I'm against the wishlist of ditching these tubes, but if ever a plane needed it, it would be our A-8.

[SmokinLoon]

its double negative day, so its still a +1  .

Show me when carriers opperated within 6000yds of their target.

Show me when single lancasters flew at 4000ft into an area with air incapability.

show me when single tanks would assult an airbase

show me when an airbase was close enough to the front to come under ground attack

When you show me all those, I'll withdraw my +1.

Oh, I bet all of those actually happened save for the "carrier within 6000 yards".  

I know B24's flew in under 1000ft in at least 1 mission in the PTO.  I know there were Soviet ad-hoc airfields within peein' distance of the front as they advanced.  I'm willing to bet that single tanks were tasked with attacking an outpost or defended camps (with supporting infantry) as well.