c 205 bomb option

[Butcher]

And here is where you just shot your entire argument in the foot. You're using a might have been argument for the P-51, and an XYZ in real life argument for the C.205.


Absolutely ZERO difference between the two plane's situations. Now pick ONE type of argument, and we'll go from there

Goes to show your lack of aviation history, there was no "might have been" argument from me perhaps you are attempting to nick pick in a subject you don't understand to clearly. Perhaps re-read my statement so you can best
understand why the P51-D didn't carry ords, there is a very good reason for it and I will give you a hint "water cooled engine".

i would be happy if they left the C.205 as is.

but they should really add the Fiat G.55, it is basicly a high powered C.205 and it can carry more ordnance (bombs and torpedoes)

G.55 was rigged to carry bombs, torpedoes and drop tanks, but it never really went past a prototype stage, all G.55's were strictly interceptors, only a few accounts even carried drop tanks. It did however score well over 100 victories
given so few aircraft flew.

[Tank-Ace]

Goes to show your lack of aviation history, there was no "might have been" argument from me perhaps you are attempting to nick pick in a subject you don't understand to clearly. Perhaps re-read my statement so you can best
understand why the P51-D didn't carry ords, there is a very good reason for it and I will give you a hint "water cooled engine".

Perhaps you are missing the point. Infact, I'm near certian of it. You argue against the C.205 getting bombs because of it being a rare loadout. But you also side-step the fact that the P-51 rarely carried both bombs and rockets.

1) The P-51 rarely carried both bombs AND rockets (as far as photo evidence shows)
2) the C.205 rarely carried bombs
3) The P-51 in AH can carry bombs AND rockets without any cost or penalty

Because these points are true, there is no solid argument against the C.205 getting bombs, and yet you ignore this because its inconvinent to you.

[Krusty]

Selino: It was not a super powered C.205... In fact if I recall it was a couple mph slower, even. It had the exact same engine. What it had was a different wing, different weapons, longer range, better high alt performance (more wing area = more lift).


Ace, Butcher, you two are both arguing off a false premise.

The P-51 has historically accurate and common loadouts. What HTC has said on the matter is they are not going to limit you from mixing and matching WHICH historic loadouts you want. For example on the 110G the rkts are air to air only, but you will often find folks mix them in with bombs for ground attack duties. Each by themselves is a very common item.

You look at the C.205 and bombs were nonexistent... DTs were nearly so. They are so rare, in fact, I'm willing to bet most of your "6 pictures" are of the same plane at the same time from the same mission. Bombs will never get added to the Macchi. DTs maybe, but honestly they have no common historic usage to back up why they should be added.

[Tilt]

Can some one show me a picture of an La7 with a pair of 100KG bombs  (and the picture with just the shackles does not count). Yes the la7 was rated to carry 2 x 100 GP bombs or 2 x 50 GP bombs. I have the drawings of the bomb release mechanism. But in actuality the use of the same was a common as hens teeth. Actually the original AH La7 did not carry bombs they were added on the basis of proven "shackle" evidence and known specification.

Same would apply for any other plane IMO.

Btw 100 KG bombs were rarely used on the La5FN from what I can see. 50Kg  GP and indeed even 25Kg fragmentation bombs were more common

[Butcher]

Tilt,
Problem is there is extremely limited sourced information on the Russian VVS during WW2, I have one photo of a La5-FN with bomb racks and that's it, I have a very large collection of sourced documents- everything from magazines to books and
I have absolutely not even a handful on the Russian Airforce. I have one book with information and it shows the max bombload was 330lbs or 6x RS-82 rockets. The La-7 might not of ever flown with bombs or rockets, maybe it was just fitted as a requirement from the designers to handle the bombs and rockets.


It's going to be extremely hard to disprove the La-7 simply because its impossible to get information on it, all things considered with the handful of photos I have, none have rockets/bombs or three 20mm cannons.

Again its only one source of information, with an extremely limited amount of photos showing the La-7, in comparison I have close to over a dozen books on the Spitfires alone, with hundreds of photos.

It's been debated before whether the 3 gun option should be allowed, I vote against it as well as having bombs, it was strictly a fighter from what little photos that were shown.

[oakranger]

Can some one show me a picture of an La7 with a pair of 100KG bombs  (and the picture with just the shackles does not count). Yes the la7 was rated to carry 2 x 100 GP bombs or 2 x 50 GP bombs. I have the drawings of the bomb release mechanism. But in actuality the use of the same was a common as hens teeth. Actually the original AH La7 did not carry bombs they were added on the basis of proven "shackle" evidence and known specification.

Same would apply for any other plane IMO.

Btw 100 KG bombs were rarely used on the La5FN from what I can see. 50Kg  GP and indeed even 25Kg fragmentation bombs were more common

That would be a tough one.  How often did the Russian take any pictures of La 7, especially with bombs?  How often did they carry out mission to bomb something?

[potsNpans]

One source I've found on the use of drop tanks for the C202 and C205 was from Squadron Signal in the walk around series
http://home.comcast.net/~anthem76/images/forums/Picture%20001.jpg(just b/w photo of tank not fixed to A/C)
http://home.comcast.net/~anthem76/images/forums/Picture.jpg (line drawing of 205)

[Butcher]

One source I've found on the use of drop tanks for the C202 and C205 was from Squadron Signal in the walk around series
http://home.comcast.net/~anthem76/images/forums/Picture%20001.jpg(just b/w photo of tank not fixed to A/C)
http://home.comcast.net/~anthem76/images/forums/Picture.jpg (line drawing of 205)

1° Stormo used drop tanks to escort planes to North Africa, based in Pantelleria.

This is what the drop tanks would look like on a C.202:

[oakranger]

One source I've found on the use of drop tanks for the C202 and C205 was from Squadron Signal in the walk around series
http://home.comcast.net/~anthem76/images/forums/Picture%20001.jpg(just b/w photo of tank not fixed to A/C)
http://home.comcast.net/~anthem76/images/forums/Picture.jpg (line drawing of 205)

Only Pots would go this far to fine something.  WTG sir, come back to 353rd!   

[Krusty]

1° Stormo used drop tanks to escort planes to North Africa, based in Pantelleria.

This is what the drop tanks would look like on a C.202:
(Image removed from quote.)

Note the roundels? That plane is from after Mussolini was killed and Italy aligned itself with the Allies.

I wonder what in the world they could be doing "escorting" planes to N. Africa when their country was essentially out of the war, and N. Africa had long been decided by then...

No, that 1 photo is nothing to go off of because with those markings it is most likely a recon plane configuration, and what action it would see would be over Italian soil fighting LW planes or co-beligerent Macchis.

[Tilt]

Tilt,
Problem is there is extremely limited sourced information on the Russian VVS during WW2,

Butcher I have quite considerable information on Lavochkins (my pet study since 1998)

Early Lagg3's could and did carry RS82 rockets (3 per wing) no La5, La5F, La5FN, La7 ever carried rockets.

Bomb shackles were part of the Lavochkin wing design from Lagg3 right thru to the La7.

I have pictures of Bomb shackles on La5FN's and La7's. I have pictures of 50kg bombs and 25kg bombs on La5FN's. I have no pictures of bombs mounted on La7's.

I have several pictures of 3 cannon La7's and service records in both GPW and Manchurian campaigns. (actually if the La7 ever did use bombs it would have been in Manchuria {speculation})

The point being that the C202/5 has every right to be modelled with its bombs as has the  La7. The precident has been set.

[Krusty]

point being that the C202/5 has every right to be modelled with its bombs as has the  La7. The precident has been set.

No, it hasn't. While it may not have been so common, if you can show the La-7 carried some form of bomb you have a LOT more of an argument than the C2 has. The La-7 and the VVS in general was for close support of the armies below. The VVS moved up with the armies, covered them, cleared the skies, attacked jabos, etc... You have many more stories of VVS planes loading out with rockets and bombs to attack German columns than you will ever find of C2s doing the same.

The mindset and the mentality was totally different. If needed they relied on MGs to strafe. That's pretty much it. Even on other Italian airframes you find it is very rare to have any kind of bomb under a fighter. Often only a few airframes carried bombs under centerline or outer wings. The C2 wasn't one, instead relegated to use as a pure fighter in Italian minds.


As such, I personally see a much better argument for the La-7 to have bombs than you can ever present for the C2 to have them. That said, whether you want to argue the La-7 is correct or not is another matter. Consider, if you will, that even if the La7 is inaccurate doesn't mean it is a precedent, and 2 wrongs don't make a right. Modeling a new plane off of an inaccurate/flawed existing plane is never a good idea.

[Butcher]

Note the roundels? That plane is from after Mussolini was killed and Italy aligned itself with the Allies.

I wonder what in the world they could be doing "escorting" planes to N. Africa when their country was essentially out of the war, and N. Africa had long been decided by then...

No, that 1 photo is nothing to go off of because with those markings it is most likely a recon plane configuration, and what action it would see would be over Italian soil fighting LW planes or co-beligerent Macchis.

That totally caught me thanks for catching it, I didn't even bother to check the wing insignias and research them (clearly shows it was an allied model).

Sadly the photo also lists it as a C.205, which clearly it isn't, I found the photo on a website also claiming it to be a C.205 w/ drop tanks.

[j500ss]

As I read the posts made thus far in this thread, I have this nagging opinion, that I just really have to state.   Now mind you I am not saying right or wrong here, and I never fly the 205 except for the rare FSO here and there.   It just seems to me, that if in fact they were able to be equipped with DT's, and they were ( albeit rarely used)  that kind of says to me the planes, at least a given number of them  were factory designed or field modded ( with factory approval I would assume)  to do so.   So I have to kind of tend to believe they should have that option here.

I guess I just don't agree with the argument of rarity in this particular case, at least as the DT's go.   The bombs?  Matters not one way or another to me personally.  We have our share of "rare" in AH as it is........

It's not like we are talking about some obscure, uber weapons package, it's about actual time in the air.  The DT's give no other tactical advantage to the people who regularly fly them in the MA's, except more time to actually be in the air, and given the "burn" in the MA's I can see some liking that option available to them.   Yes, that option would probably be nice to have for scenarios and FSO alike.

So with the fact that so little can be found out about them, I guess my question to HTC would be " are they not an option, because there is little to no data available on how the plane flew or behaved with them on, or was it something more than that"?  Because I have to believe they know/knew  that it was in fact an actual option in WWII,  just very rarely used.


 

JDog

[Krusty]

Jdog, you must differentiate what COULD be done with what WAS done.

You COULD load 17,000lbs into a B-17, but it wasn't done. We have representative or typical weapons setups in Aces High. There are a few that maybe don't belong or are more rare, but overall the precedent is what was used in common combat. You don't see F6Fs with 20mm Hispanos, but they were designed from the factory to mount them. You don't see P-40s with 20mm Hispanos, but they were designed from the factory to take them. You don't see P-38s with 37mm cannons, but guess what? Before the Hispano that's what they were designed from the factory to take!


You can't just go by what they COULD do because they COULD do any number of random unsanctioned things. You have to consider the history of the use of said weapons. IMO the overall experience of feeling like you're in WW2 combat plays a big part of this game. You start adding fictional weapons that never were used in the war and you might as well log off and fly Ubisoft's IL2 1946 offline.