I remember those threads, but again it goes to could have should have. Name me one airplane that allowed you to cycle though twenty different gunsight patterns. Maybe it is ok now and then to just let certain things. I frankly enjoy the rear guns. They add a different sort of challenge to the game. I had a great Arado on Arado fight with don a few years back, something I still recall when I fly the Arado.
In your estimation were the guns not added because they were a feel good design and were not capable of doing what they do, or were they not added because of production challenges, like the off site installation you alluded to.
Would it not be best just to get rid of f3 mode all together?
The first paragraph gets down to personal choice you like the rearward guns
That's cool & I compliment you on your ability to figure out how to use them.
I personally can't nut them out
& because of that I just don't load them on when I fly this plane.
I can't hit anything with them so why bother. Again personal choice here.
Second paragraph the Germans wanted guns for defence they wanted guns that could be controlled by the pilot & for this to happen they wanted guns that could traverse via the pilot using the rear view with the periscope.
Many drawings were done blue prints clearly show this was an option they wanted. How ever the technology was not there to do this yet.
Also when the first 234's were made they had no landing gear they used a trolley to take off with then landed on skids like the ME-163.
The first B model's with landing gear were prototypes also not meant for production. The C model was where Arado put all their eggs in one basket so to speak.
How ever when the German high command looked at the potential of the 234B's & keeping in mind the ME-262 was slated to be a bomber not a fighter per Hitlers request.
AR-234's were going to be the jet fighter when they got the C model rolling. That changed once the 262 was redirected back as a fighter.
So they made 210 or so 234B's some were photo recons & others were slated to be bombers.
The compartment that housed the cameras also was the spot where the rear guns would have been placed.
All the 234B's actually had the ability to mount rear guns. The connecting points were there to do that.
The night fighter 234's used that same compartment for the radar operator so there was a small amount that are in fact a two man crew.
They needed planes fast so they pushed the 234-B in to production it was never meant to be a front line aircraft & the rear guns had not been figured out yet,so they simply just did not bother as the C model was ramping up.
Third paragraph ultimately yes get rid of F3 mode on the 234-B. First lets get the periscope figured out with it's rear views before that happens. Also I long moved on about rear guns I want to figure out the dive bombing ability's of this plane & the on board computer that did this with the forward view of the periscope.
These are options that were standard & by all accounts worked quite well.
Forward facing guns? I think would be a fun option the night fighters did not shoot anything down as they could not adjust to the closing speeds at night on slow bombers & they also were terrified of debris hitting that Plexiglas nose.
One fellow borrowed that gun pod & put it on his plane in Italy. He did dog fight with it if he had not crashed the plane on a hard landing he may have been the first 234-B pilot with confirmed kills.
Maybe a perk for ORDS deal that one
kind of on the fence about it though.
