New Stuka

[Tank-Ace]

No difference at all. In fact even with F3 disabled the Ju may be the preferred ride. It's not as armored, true, but it has significantly better visibility with that greenhouse canopy. I think that alone will make folks use it instead of the IL2.

Not to mention the fact that even with the gun pods, it will still probably be a bit more nimble than the IL-2. Or in other words, it will be better able to madly throw itself around the sky to avoid fire.

[Raphael]

I wouldn't mind having no F3 in the stuka. I will bust tanks in it anyway.

[Lusche]

I doubt players will rush the Ju-87 becasue it's "more nimble" than the Stuka. After all, they also didn't went in numbers for the Hurri D after the IL-2 lost it's F3, which unlike the Ju-87 is really wayyyyy more maneuverable than the Shturmovik. And it's cannon can destroy all tanks as well.

[Tank-Ace]

I doubt players will rush the Ju-87 becasue it's "more nimble" than the Stuka. After all, they also didn't went in numbers for the Hurri D after the IL-2 lost it's F3, which unlike the Ju-87 is really wayyyyy more maneuverable than the Shturmovik. And it's cannon can destroy all tanks as well.

Yes, but the Hurricane IID, while capable of killing all tanks, can't do it nearly so easily. They gain manuverablity and speed, but lose firepower and really that costs it some combat effectivness.

With the Stuka (depending on how much damage the 37mm's do to tanks), we'll be looking at an increase in manuverablity at the cost of only some armor, and maybe the potential 2-3 tank kills lost by the decreased ammunition.


Its important to note that people don't choose planes and tanks based on any one atribute, but based on their overall effectivness or out of some personal affection they feel for a specific plane or tank. I think that the Stuka will definatly be more effective than the Hurricane IID. And depending on how hard hitting those 37mm's are, it could even rival the Il-2, to the point that the better view and manuverablity could possibly be deciding factors.


Personally, I'm gonna take the G-2 over the IL-2 any day, but thats because I'm a luftwaffle.

[Citabria]

I hope the ju87G will have attack mode only and thus no external views.

its not a bomber as it carries no bombs.

its primary role of tank hunter. it should have no external views.

I want to fly the ju87G and I think I would prefer to not have external view when tank hunting or when fighting enemy aircraft.

and btw I fly the il2 a ton more since the external view was removed.

[Ruah]

if it has F3 mode. . .big trouble little AH

[SmokinLoon]

Yes, but the Hurricane IID, while capable of killing all tanks, can't do it nearly so easily. They gain manuverablity and speed, but lose firepower and really that costs it some combat effectivness.

With the Stuka (depending on how much damage the 37mm's do to tanks), we'll be looking at an increase in manuverablity at the cost of only some armor, and maybe the potential 2-3 tank kills lost by the decreased ammunition.


Its important to note that people don't choose planes and tanks based on any one atribute, but based on their overall effectivness or out of some personal affection they feel for a specific plane or tank. I think that the Stuka will definatly be more effective than the Hurricane IID. And depending on how hard hitting those 37mm's are, it could even rival the Il-2, to the point that the better view and manuverablity could possibly be deciding factors.


Personally, I'm gonna take the G-2 over the IL-2 any day, but thats because I'm a luftwaffle.

There are charts showing the effectiveness of the Soviet NS-37, Vickers S, and the BK 3.7cm.  From what I am seeing there is no clear advantage to any of the guns, only gun platforms.

The Stuka may have a tighter turn radius at stall speeds, but that hardly counts as "more maneuverable".  The Hurricane IID will run circles around the Stuka.  Check the stats.  The Stuka might win in terms of pilot protection and sustained turn rates, but that is about it. 

If people would just take the time to learn the Hurricane IID, the Il-2 would be left in the hanger far more than it is.  I cant remember the last time I took one up.  They only time I think I consider it is when I know there are multiple soft gv's inbound to a town and I will take up rocket for the near miss hits.  Rockets are great for blowing tires, treads, turrets, etc.   

[Tank-Ace]

There are charts showing the effectiveness of the Soviet NS-37, Vickers S, and the BK 3.7cm.  From what I am seeing there is no clear advantage to any of the guns, only gun platforms.

The Stuka may have a tighter turn radius at stall speeds, but that hardly counts as "more maneuverable".  The Hurricane IID will run circles around the Stuka.  Check the stats.  The Stuka might win in terms of pilot protection and sustained turn rates, but that is about it. 

If people would just take the time to learn the Hurricane IID, the Il-2 would be left in the hanger far more than it is.  I cant remember the last time I took one up.  They only time I think I consider it is when I know there are multiple soft gv's inbound to a town and I will take up rocket for the near miss hits.  Rockets are great for blowing tires, treads, turrets, etc.

I'm not so sure about that. The 40mm definately FEELS less effective against tanks, especially when firing at side and rear armor, instead of top armor. Now it may be just perception, but perception also plays a big part in what people fly. The 40mm is also less accurate than the 37mm, and has a slower ROF, which combined with the fact that the IID is just a less stable firing platform mean more time spent taking out each tank, regardless of the effectivness of the rounds themselves.


As to the manuverablity, I was actually refering to the responsivness of the aircraft. The Ju-87D-3 just feels quicker and more responsive to the controls (particularly in roll rate), than the IL-2 does.


And you also say 'if people would just take the time to learn the IID', which implys that the IID is inherently different in the effective method for engaging targets. The only possible culprit for that would be less effective armament, else attacks could be made in the same fashion as they are with the IL-2 without any loss of effectivness (relative to the IL-2), regardless of if they are the MOST effective, or even efficient, method FOR THE IID.


So no, its not 'if people would just learn the IID', its a matter of the IID having less effective armament regardless of the effectiveness of the individual projectiles.

[Raphael]

Hurri D certainly is not 'less accurate'
aim right and it will go just where you aim it. consider gravity, lead and the position of your guns (if you are a litle leaned the shots will go differently then if you have both wingtips at same altitude) It won't just go random, it IS accurate as the IL-2, but the IL-2 'feels' more accurate due to its ROF

The way you use those planes are also different. at least the way I use them differ to much and I still see many people augerin' on them because they think it's the same thing.

Personally if it is an emergency and I have to get rid of the gv quickly (like in town) I'll up a hurri D because it will take off and go to its target and then start making the passes. If I wish to go on a longer sortie, maybe to another base even, then the IL-2 is a good choice. both are fun as heck but I sure will fly the Stuka for one goood ammount of time, oh boy I will.

Now if only the hurri D had a cockpit update 

[matt]

+1

[R 105]

 Well I am happy to see the new Stuka in the game. Not just for historical reasons but another tank buster can't hurt. However I would still like to see the HS-129 in here someday. It would be much less prone to damage from ground fire than the JU87-G or any other ground attack plane now in the game if modeled correctly. The two engines would give it better survivability than the IL-2.  But the HS-129 flew like a brick due to it's weight to power problems.

[Lusche]

As being said, the Vickers S on the Hurri D is certainly not less accurate than the ND-37. In fact, it's a very precise weapon - but the low ROF and ammo count demands precision from the shooter as well, and that's the big drawback. The Il-2 can hose down a tank, in the Hurricane every shot counts.  The Il-2 is also more versatile vs ground vehicles for the same reason, it's more suited top kill fast but light armored vehicles like M-3's than the single-shot Hurricane.
When using a low level flat attack profile from sides or rear, the Ju will be much superior to the Hurricane, but that will also make you very vulnerable to pintle guns and main cannons... the Ju is a slow, fat target in that case...

[Karnak]

Well I am happy to see the new Stuka in the game. Not just for historical reasons but another tank buster can't hurt. However I would still like to see the HS-129 in here someday. It would be much less prone to damage from ground fire than the JU87-G or any other ground attack plane now in the game if modeled correctly. The two engines would give it better survivability than the IL-2.  But the HS-129 flew like a brick due to it's weight to power problems.

Could the Hs129 even fly on one engine?  If not I don't see the Hs129 being any more survivable than the Il-2.  Less rather due to its horrid power to weight ratio.

[Wmaker]

Less rather due to its horrid power to weight ratio.

Have you actually checked it?

[Reaper90]

Without looking at numbers, my gutt feeling is the HS129 with the big gun would fly a lot like a slightly smaller B25H....

an MY GAWD, look at that thing.... who wouldn't want to have that thing hanging out front?