Henschel Hs 129

[nrshida]

Krusty can give his opinions as much as he likes.  HTC ultimately decides and we all know that.

Very good point! So he can safely be ignored? 

[Karnak]

Very good point! So he can safely be ignored? 

You can debate with him, just don't let it get too personal.

[Greebo]

I think it more likely we'd get the Ju 87G than the Hs 129. HTC can add that easily when they redo the dive bomber version and it does pretty much the same job scenario-wise as the 129. Given it's better cockpit visibility and I'd guess better turning ability it would probably be slightly less suicidal as an MA ride too.

BTW the Ju 88 also had instruments mounted on the engine nacelles.

[Reaper90]

I wants my 75mm AP rounds!!!!!   


Gimme Gimme Gimme I NEED! I NEED! I NEED!!!

[Bronk]

See Rule #4

[Wmaker]

The BK37 was never used. I believe only one or two airframes were even mocked up before that avenue of thought was throroughly discontinued, and they started planning for the 75mm gun instead.

"Another weapons option was a 37mm BK 3.7 with 12 rounds in a gondola placed under the fuselage. This same weapon - a modified Flak 18 - was also fitted under the wings  of the Junkers Ju 87G-1 Stuka."

Source: Henchel Hs 129 in action

Are you so sure about those 75mm guns being used?

Yes I am. Its use is well described in Martin Pegg's excellent book about the aircraft. For example, during one period during '45, 9 nine Soviet tanks were destroyed during the course of 14 sorties.

Um.... from the fact that they stopped building it. Do you know what cancelled means? It means "no longer wanted," "contractually discontinued," "production shut down, prematurely" or fill in any term you want to use.

By your logic every aircraft in the mankind's history of flight has been or will be 'cancelled'. You tried to make a point that Hs129 wasn't succesful and thus was cancelled. It simply is not the case. As I said, the biggest flaw of the Hs129 was that there wasn't enough of them. In the fall of '44 German bomber production was largely shut down aswell in favor of the fighter production. Doesn't mean that those bombers were unsuccesful either.

Depending how you count it, Hs129 was produced over 3,5 years.

I'll quote Mr. Pegg:

"Development problems are an inevitable part of the life of any aeroplane and frequently stimulate the most attention. This is certainly true in the case of the Hs 129 and although these were overcome through development, the aircraft has continued to be associated more with its early problems than with its later success."

[Krusty]

Many of the In Action books are inaccurate in many details. The 37mm wasn't used.

I thank you for the extra info on the 75mm. Good to know!

You are wrong on the following, though:

By your logic every aircraft in the mankind's history of flight has been or will be 'cancelled'. You tried to make a point that Hs129 wasn't succesful and thus was cancelled. It simply is not the case.

Your lack of English as a native language is creating an issue where there isn't one. Allow me to attempt to clarify. Henschel wasn't making money unless they were producing a plane. They didn't want to STOP production. They were told to from an outside authority. That is what we call being cancelled. IF, on the other hand, they decided of their own free will to stop producing it, that would be "discontinued." There is a difference in meaning.

P.S. I never said it was cancelled because it wasn't successful, just that when it was cancelled it was still unable to compete. The airframe remained unchanged for many years while ground targets leapt ahead light years in armor development. When the Hs-129 was developed, the Panzer IV F1/F2 was the biggest baddest thing on the battlefield. There's a big difference between this and the T-34/85, for example. It's like the Cr.42 being used in limited capacity up to 1943/44... Doesn't mean it could compete, just that they were desperate.

[Wmaker]

Many of the In Action books are inaccurate in many details. The 37mm wasn't used.

I posted a photo of a 37mm armed Hs129 which clearly taken in the field conditions and you say it wasn't used? Did they photoshop that pic or what then? You keep saying it wasn't used and yet you are unable to provide any source to prove your stance and at the same time I just posted a photo which shows a 37mm equipped Hs129.

I couldn't care less if you in your personal universe think that it wasn't used. If you are certain it wasn't used I'm sure you can provide proof which says so and I'm sure this source of yours is also able to explain how the photo I posted is a fake. What are you waiting for, just post the source!

Not that it matters in the context of AH either way. I'd always take the MK103 in favor of the BK 3.7 anyway as the MK103 is already more than capable to penetrate the top armour of most tanks, carries 100 rounds of ammo instead of 12 and is lighter.

Henschel wasn't making money unless they were producing a plane. They didn't want to STOP production. They were told to from an outside authority. That is what we call being cancelled. IF, on the other hand, they decided of their own free will to stop producing it, that would be "discontinued." There is a difference in meaning.

Is this your own opinion or can you provide me with an actual source?

Martin Pegg's book has nice info on the halting of the production but I just don't have the energy to quote it because it really is useless knowing you anyway. Over thousand Hs129s were produced and they served with distinction...something which the winner's side of the history hasn't exactly potrayed in the light it deserves. Thanks for Martin Pegg's exhaustive research alot of those details have now been published.

P.S. I never said it was cancelled because it wasn't successful, just that when it was cancelled it was still unable to compete. The airframe remained unchanged for many years while ground targets leapt ahead light years in armor development. When the Hs-129 was developed, the Panzer IV F1/F2 was the biggest baddest thing on the battlefield. There's a big difference between this and the T-34/85, for example. It's like the Cr.42 being used in limited capacity up to 1943/44... Doesn't mean it could compete, just that they were desperate.

At first, the main armament was 20mm cannons and 50kg bombs. Later larger calibre weapons were developed and installed into it. I'd call that development. In real life the attack angles were a lot less shallow than in AH for example. In real life the attacks were performed from the sides and from the rear. The steep angles that many use in AH would have been quite hazardous. As I've already said, MK103 penetrates the roofs of most tanks (only Tiger I and II are excluded from this) in AH with ease.

And as far as competing in general, both the Martin Pegg's book and Kagero's operational history of the Hs129 are both filled with accounts how Hs129 alone halted Soviet armour offensives and left scenes where tens of tanks burning, T-34s, Klim Vorosilovs etc. Those accounts are too numerous to quote.

If people aren't willing to dig any deeper than to the popular "commonly accepted" history for this aircraft, there's not much I can say to convince anyone. And I don't really care one way or the other, the information has been published and it is the physical parameters which deside what kind of aircraft it would be in AH. And in many way it would compare favourably to the Il-2 with 37mm cannons in AH. Weather people are willing to learn or not is another matter.


Books:

Hs129 in Combat by Kagero publications

Hs129 PANZERJÄGER! by Martin Pegg

Hs129 in action

[nrshida]

You can debate with him, just don't let it get too personal.

In all honesty I think it's more fitting if I just ignored him. Thanks for the advice though 

[Krusty]

Wmaker... a picture of a guy standing next to a plane is your proof? Proof that the gun was fitted or tested, but not that it was used, and not clear evidence of any field use. Not proof that it was put into production in any numbers.

Here's a picture of some guys standing next to an Argus-powered Hs-129... Surely that's proof it's was the main version that saw service? No? It didn't see any? But they're in uniform!



You see how that does not work with any sort of logic? That's why your picture is no proof of any kind.

Let's show the rest of the page that photo comes from:



That's hardly indicative of field use.

You like to pick fights and argue. You take data -- just enough data -- to try and pick a fight without always backing it up. Sometimes you're right, and when you're not you get really combatitive because you know you don't have much wiggle room.

Your photo, for example. You say that's proof. Seriously? You yourself showed the math that the 30mm were getting the job done (thanks for the clarification by the way). The 37mm wasn't part of the equation. The handful of 75mm saw combat, but again only a handful were being tested. The majority of the airframes making all those late-war kills must have been armed with the Mk103 gunpods.

[AWwrgwy]

Is anyone else wondering who put Krusty in charge of vetting all Wishlist requests?

That's my job.



wrongway

[Wmaker]

Wmaker... a picture of a guy standing next to a plane is your proof?

What the guy is wearing and his general appearance and what that particular plane looks like is my proof that the photo is taken from the field. You, yourself initially said:

Yes both the Mk101 and Mk103 were fitted, but the common majority were these 30mm guns. The BK37 was never used. I believe only one or two airframes were even mocked up before that avenue of thought was throroughly discontinued, and they started planning for the 75mm gun instead.

That's not a mockup in the photo, it's an actual cannon. Never said it was used in large numbers.

Also, believe it or not, I take the caption of any publication over your drivel any day of the week. Anyway, as I said, weather BK 3.7 would be a loadout or not in the possible AH incarnation of the Hs129 I really wouldn't care either way. MK103 would perform better in AH anyway.

We can of course compare certain loadouts already in AH. For example, Il-2's 37mm load was used experimentally by 96 planes during the august of '43. Pretty small % considering the numbers of il-2s produced.

You like to pick fights and argue. You take data -- just enough data -- to try and pick a fight without always backing it up. Sometimes you're right, and when you're not you get really combatitive because you know you don't have much wiggle room.

This is hilariously ironic coming from you.

The only main cannon I'd ever use would be the MK103. 100 rounds in a single center-line cannon would be very nice to use when mounted to an aircraft which is a great gun platform largely due to counter rotating props.

[Krusty]

So you're nitpicking my use of "mocked up"? I didn't mean a fake gun. The Germans put enough random guns on enough random test frames. To mock something up for me is to put it together quickly to see what it's like. I'm not talking paper mache, or wooden decoys like the AVG used. I fully realize it's a real gun in that picture. That doesn't negate the fact that it was not a production setup, which you know and are trying to avoid.

I'll tell you why it doesn't prove to be a "field" use, as well. Its caption tells us nothing. It just says there's a BK3,7 on an Hs129. The caption does not say it was in use nor that it was seen outside of the photo there. It's also a war-time photo. Every capable man of fighting age (and even children too young -- Hitler Youth!) was put in a uniform. There are going to be guards at any airfield. Somebody somewhere is going to want his photo taken. Even if he has nothing to do with the plane itself. There is no identifying indicator anywhere in that photo. You can't see the field, the location, any indicators. It might as well be at Rechlin!

You may have not been saying they saw much use, but the way you've been fighting over the matter you imply that's what you think. Your own comment: "I posted a photo of a 37mm armed Hs129 which clearly taken in the field conditions and you say it wasn't used?" implies you think I'm wrong and is suggesting your stance is that they WERE used. Everything you've posted suggests you're taking the opposite stance I was taking.


Aside from some additional info on the PAK40/BK7,5 you have only been nit-picking my choice of words? Okay. Nitpick what you want, but unless you think the BK3,7 was put in production and you think the Hs129 was built until the end of the war, my 2 points remain true: The BK3,7 wasn't used, and the HS129 production was cancelled.

[Bronk]

See Rule #4

[Wmaker]

So you're nitpicking my use of "mocked up"? I didn't mean a fake gun.

Heh, and it's me who doesn't understand english.

You aren't worth communicating to.