Vickers Wellington

[Volron]

Volron,

Pointing out that there were other aircraft that potentially could be considered "real" Axis heavies doesn't mean I am advocating for them, just giving a couple of other options.  The fact is that the Axis never had a real heavy to use like the B-17, B-24, B-29, Halifax and Lancaster were used.  We will probably get the He177A-5 at some point, and when we do I really hope it isn't modeled so as to be the best heavy bomber other than the B-29 as that would be a farce in light of its historical faults.  I don't want a special case to be made for it to have mechanical problems modeled, but hopefully it is comparatively fragile and doesn't have a ludicrous bomb load.

I figured as much.   I was just pulling your leg.

For the He-177, the solution would be to perk it.  I doubt HTC will model any problems like that into a plane, regardless if it suffered from it through out production or not.  I think a perk price equal to the Mossy 16 as well as eny (maybe lower eny) would be a solid solution.

[Karnak]

For the He-177, the solution would be to perk it.  I doubt HTC will model any problems like that into a plane, regardless if it suffered from it through out production or not.  I think a perk price equal to the Mossy 16 as well as eny (maybe lower eny) would be a solid solution.

I disagree.  Making it so good as to need to be perked when in reality it was an abject failure would be absurd.

I would suggest that the following be done to balance it:

1) Select bomb loads in the B-24's range
2) Model it as not being able to take as many hits before structural failure when compared to the other four heavies
3) Model the engines so that the catch fire relatively easily when hit


It would still be viable for Luftwaffe fans, it would still be the fastest unperked heavy bomber and it would still have a 20mm cannon in the tail.  It simply should not overshadow the historically good heavy bombers such as the B-17 and Lancaster.

[Butcher]

I disagree.  Making it so good as to need to be perked when in reality it was an abject failure would be absurd.

I would suggest that the following be done to balance it:

1) Select bomb loads in the B-24's range
2) Model it as not being able to take as many hits before structural failure when compared to the other four heavies
3) Model the engines so that the catch fire relatively easily when hit


It would still be viable for Luftwaffe fans, it would still be the fastest unperked heavy bomber and it would still have a 20mm cannon in the tail.  It simply should not overshadow the historically good heavy bombers such as the B-17 and Lancaster.

Its going to be made in aces High as if it had no problems what so ever - look at the King Tiger - we don't have any that have piss poor welding or sabotage done to it, the He-177 would be perked for sure.

[Shuffler]

MMMmmmmmmm

[wil3ur]

MMMmmmmmmm

....indeed! 

[Karnak]

Its going to be made in aces High as if it had no problems what so ever - look at the King Tiger - we don't have any that have piss poor welding or sabotage done to it, the He-177 would be perked for sure.

Not absolutely.  All of the things I suggest are doable and have precedent.  Not having the maximum bomb load, well, the B-17G only carries 6,000lbs in AH when it was capable of carrying as much as 16,000lbs for short distances.  The B-29's engines are easily set aflame, so that is precedent for that.  HTC models aircraft durability based on what the evidence suggests is reasonable and the He177 is reputed by some sources to have been comparatively fragile.  All of those things fall in line with what HTC models and none of it relates to mechanical failures or production line sabotage.

[Flossy]

I would love to see this one.  In January it was the funeral of my Uncle Alwyn (Olly) Thomas who died on 8 January at the age of 91. During the service the vicar recollected some of Alwyn's times during WW2 in Wellington bombers. My mother had written to the local paper a few months previous telling them of these accounts. I have pasted parts of the resulting article below.

Why flying bombers was a risky business

The survival rate among aircrew in Bomber Command was very low and the more missions they flew the lower the odds were that they would survive the war. Here we have been given the story of one survivor still living in our midst, Alwyn Thomas from Stockton. Alwyn had a very lucky escape from two terrifying incidents, neither of which were actually caused by enemy action, but terrifying just the same.

"In 1941 the crew of my Wellington bomber was transferred to Malta so that our squadron could be deployed against the railways and docks on the African coast which were part of Rommel's supply lines for his Afrika Corps.

One evening we were in the bomber ready to go on a mission when the air raids sounded, so we had to exit the plane and run for cover, a hit on our fully loaded plane at this point would have been catastrophic.  After a while, the all clear sounded and we went back to our planes for take off. I was the rear gunner on the bomber so entered the plane separately from the rest of the crew via the gun turret.

In my hurry to leave the plane during the enemy air raid I had rolled out of the turret backwards and in doing so my foot had somehow taken my oxygen mask and microphone off. By this time the plane was gathering speed and I was unable to retrieve my mask, therefore, I had no oxygen and no way of communicating with the rest of the crew.  It was too late to close my door to the turret so to stop it from jamming I had to jettison the door. With no door I was in danger of being sucked out, so I hung on to my machine guns by clasping my arms and legs around them to keep me in the plane.

By the time we got over the target there was enemy flak coming up and bursting all around us but still I hung on. As you may imagine I was in quite a state when we landed, everyone considered it a miracle I had survived.

Later on, we were flying missions which meant we had to negotiate the Alps. The Wellingtons were too heavy, when fully laden, to fly over the mountains so we actually had to fly through the passes. Sometimes when the moon shone on the snowy mountains, the scenery was breathtakingly beautiful. After one mission, when we were landing, a tragic accident occurred caused by a fault in our plane's green and red recognition lights. We had just landed when we found that another Wellington was actually landing on top of our plane. Out of 12 crew from the two planes 10 were killed, myself and an Australian were the only two survivors."

Alwyn's story shows us that even without enemy action, flying missions with Bomber Command was a very risky business often with fatal consequences.


I would love to be able to get a better appreciation for my uncle's experiences.

[Volron]

I disagree.  Making it so good as to need to be perked when in reality it was an abject failure would be absurd.

I would suggest that the following be done to balance it:

1) Select bomb loads in the B-24's range
2) Model it as not being able to take as many hits before structural failure when compared to the other four heavies
3) Model the engines so that the catch fire relatively easily when hit


It would still be viable for Luftwaffe fans, it would still be the fastest unperked heavy bomber and it would still have a 20mm cannon in the tail.  It simply should not overshadow the historically good heavy bombers such as the B-17 and Lancaster.

I will have to disagree.  Make it structurally weaker and the engines to catch fire with ease, all the while limiting it's bomb load from what may be proven for it to use constantly simply because it had engine issues throughout?  I will hope that HiTech and his Crew do not make it the way you described it.  Coding it to be slower while giving it a perk tag may prove to be better, but definitely not to the manner of which you described.

I know it's from wiki but...

"With the introduction of the DB 610 came several improvements including the relocation of the engine oil tank, the lengthening of the engine mountings by 20 cm (8 in), the complete redesign of the exhaust system which also facilitated the installation of exhaust dampers for night missions, and the setting of a power limitation on the engines which resulted in greater reliability. These modifications, supposedly numbering 56 of both major and minor varieties, were successful as far as eliminating engine fires were concerned, but other minor problems with the transfer gearbox between the two component engines of each "power system" and their shared propeller remained."

If what I read was correct, the He-177 A-5 used the DB 610's.  If we were talking about an earlier version of the He-117, prior to the A-3, then having the engines catch fire easily when hit would be a more valid option.  Structurally the wings were weak in the early A-3's but were strengthened in the late A-3's through to the A-5's.

From what I was reading, coding it to be slower with a weak elevator (snaps off easily if rough with controls) and a harsher stall characteristic would be a better option than to make it structurally weaker, with engines that catch fire with simplistic ease and removing bomb options that were proven to have been used constantly, once each of the bomb loadout options are proven of course.  Meaning, if there is information that shows that the 177 used, for examples: the 48 50kg, 10 500kg, 6 1000kg, 2 1000kg/2 1800kg and the 1 2500kg options a lot during the war, we get it.  I doubt some of these options were used a lot, but I threw them in there as examples.  If it does turn out that they are indeed valid options, awesome.  If not, awesome.



I drool at how well the Wellington will look when they add it.  The Betty, B-29 and the C-47's make me drool every time I hit F3 and look at them while in the air.   I'm getting an itchy bomber finger here...  Oh please introduce us another bomber!  I needs more types of crack!