Fw 200

[TwinBoom]

I am not saying it shouldn't be added.  I am asking why he wants it in an effort to find out if he knows what he is asking for.  Heck, I have been strongly advocating for the Ki-43 which would be just about as useful/useless in the LWA.

My concern with this is that most people who ask for the Fw200 think they are asking for a German B-17 and aren't aware that the Fw200 was actually a slow, fragile civilian airliner converted into a long range maritime patrol aircraft.

If what he wants is that long range maritime patrol aircraft, more power to him.

Yes in real life they were but can be used for scenarios and town/strat bombing
Just like in real life spit 1 and brews didnt fight k4`sand 51d

[Tank-Ace]

However, when you call it a "4 Engine German bomber with decent defensive armament." that implies certain expectations on your part.  It, to American ears at least, makes one think of something like the B-17G.

Not to me. I think more of B-26 when I hear 'decent defensive armament'. Just a bit less than the B-17's, but that 'bit less' creates some exploitable gaps where only one or two guns can be brought to bear, and none of them being a twin mount.


Anyway, +1 to the Fw 200, but only after we get a Ju-188 or He-177 and the He-111.

[Karnak]

Yes in real life they were but can be used for scenarios and town/strat bombing
Just like in real life spit 1 and brews didnt fight k4`sand 51d

Of course.  That wasn't what I was saying.  Most requests for the Fw200 have been from people who want a German heavy bomber and their expectation is a four engined, 300mphish, decently gunned, tough bomber with a good bomb load.  What they'd get in the Fw200 would be an aircraft that performs like a long ranged maritime patrol aircraft, a four engined, 220mphish, lightly gunned, fragile bomber with a relatively light bomb load.

It could, of course, be used in any way they want once added.  The Fw200 would be a fine addition, I just don't think it would be the addition that most requesters think it would be.

[Butcher]

I won't vote on the Fw-200 anytime soon, I wouldn't mind it being added but think about this - after 4-5 flights, people will switch back to B-17 or B-24.

[oakranger]

+1. It would be nice to have a long range axis bomber with a heavy paid load.

[Tank-Ace]

+1. It would be nice to have a long range axis bomber with a heavy paid load.

You mean it would be nice to have a long-ranged axis bomber. It carries a little bit more ordnance than a B-26.

[Karnak]

+1. It would be nice to have a long range axis bomber with a heavy paid load.

Case in point.

[Ack-Ack]

the condor, feared by the British and one of the planes that could have won the war (amongst a list of other things).

How could the Condor "have won the war" when crews were ordered not to engage in combat actions after 1941?

ack-ack

[Rob52240]

at the very least it would be fun to shoot at.

[HighTone]

I agree that we need another German bomber, esp for the special events. I'm just not sure I want the next one to be a Fw200.

The Germans, Russians and Italian need some bomber additions.


I would like to see us get the He-111, Pe-2/Tu-2, SM79 out of the way first.



-1 on the condor...but just for now.

[Rob52240]

No, by no means are great stats a requirement.

However, when you call it a "4 Engine German bomber with decent defensive armament." that implies certain expectations on your part.  It, to American ears at least, makes one think of something like the B-17G.  Generally that has been how requests for the Fw200 have been presented.  If you want the Fw200 for what it was, recognizing that it is inferior to the Ju88A-4, that is well and good.

I disagree, as an american I automatically assumed it would be weakly armed compared to pretty much any american bomber before I looked the specs up.

What about throwing in that russian bomber that paratroops hung from the wings of just for fun while we're at it?

[Tank-Ace]

Why do you assume that Rob? The Ju-88 was reasonably well armed for when it was designed, arguably better armed than early B-17's.

The Ju-188 was decently armed as well, as was the He-177.

[Karnak]

Why do you assume that Rob? The Ju-88 was reasonably well armed for when it was designed, arguably better armed than early B-17's.

The Ju-188 was decently armed as well, as was the He-177.

The heaviest armament carried by any large aircraft in WWII was by the Ju290A-7 which, while only ten were built, was defended by ten 20mm MG151/20 cannons.

[Tank-Ace]

Oh I know, but since, as you said, only 10 were built, I don't see how its relevent to the stereotype of German bomber's being poorly armed.

[Debrody]

Sirs, listen plz,

Im NOT against this plane and once again, its one of my favourite aircrafts.
Still, think about what AH's ju-88 a-4 couldnt do better than the FW-200? Bombload, speed, climb all goes to the 88 by far, i would call par on the defensive arnament couse the 200's guns are very poorly placed and only can fire to a very limited angle and if im right, the 20mm cannon is in the forward firing position of the gondola. All what the 200 has is the range. The Fw-200 was famous from its weak rear fuselage too...

Where could the Fw-200 be used in the scenarios? On the Atlantic convoy missions. Does AH have those? Nope.
In the other hand, the Ju-188 is an 1943-44 bomber, fast, had a well-placed, decent defensive firepower, had a bigger bombload, and, was used faaaar more, also more successfully than the Fw-200.
If you really want an early Luft bomber, that should be either the He-111 or the Do-17, based on the role they played.
Seeing how quickly HTC is pushing out the new planes (410...), i would request to concentrate the resources on the most inportant plane types (if we wanna see anything but hangar queens before we grow old):
russian bomber (tu-2, pe-2), japaneese land-based fighter (ki43, ki44), italian aircraft (sm-79, Cr-42, c200, re-2000/2001/2002), a german Mid or real early war bomber (ju-188 or he-111/do-17) and a french aircraft (D-520?)