he-177 a-5 german bomber

[Krusty]

And how effective is that 20mm tail gun on the Betty doing so far?


I thought so.

[Debrody]

And on the ki-67? b29?
imo its defensive firepower would be more than enough. If you take out the engine fires (what they solved til '44), this was a good enough aircraft. The early models were complete garbage tho.

[Krusty]

The problem is those "early models" were the vast majority that actually went into combat. You would have a hundred planes take off and only 50 make it to target, for all the failure rates it had. Most of those that did serve were on the Soviet front because they could fly higher than the low-alt VVS planes wanted to, and even then their true impact on the war was very limited.


IMO it's only a "wishlist" item because folks think the German planes need a B-17 equivelant. They don't. They need representative planes that are more like what went into combat, and more like what the allies ran across in combat.

If they actually knew anything about the German aircraft and their use in the war, they'd be asking for Ju-188s (also not too poorly armed) and/or Do217s, or even a Ju-88A-1 (much more needed for BOB than our Ju-88A-4). They'd be yelling for the He111 before the thought of a 177 ever began to form.

They just see the 177 as a LW B-29, which is wrong. IMO I don't think this game will ever "need" the 177, ever. There are far better planes to add that saw way more service in all theaters, that would easily take its place in any of the.. oh say "two" scenarios/planesets that might be able to use the 177 anyways.

[Tank-Ace]

So Krusty, basicly Luftwaffe sticks should just suck it up in the MA, and take a Ju-88? Yeah, cause thats fair  .

[Krusty]

Your reading comprehension is FAIL.

[Karnak]

So Krusty, basicly Luftwaffe sticks should just suck it up in the MA, and take a Ju-88? Yeah, cause thats fair  .

Ju188A-1 would do quite nicely I think.

[Tank-Ace]

As would the He-177.

Fact is that theres no reason NOT to get the He-177. If we get the He-177 along with an He-111, well great. If not, oh well, we're still getting something new.

[Krusty]

Fact is that theres no reason NOT to get the He-177.

Fact is, there are more arguments against including than there are for including it. Generally the only reason to include it is a misguided want for a "German B-17" -- which it isn't even.

[Tank-Ace]

What real reason for not adding it is there, besides the unreliablity, which was also a big issue in the Panther, Tiger II, Me163, and B-29.

[Krusty]

Detractive points already brought up (if you'd done any checking beforehand)

- Limited numbers in service, limited to a small theater of operations
- Limited to milk runs in areas where enemy fighters had little chance of defending
- Limited impact on war
- Not just unreliable, but horribly so, and would be represented in an unhistorical way if modeled in AH
- The LW doesn't need a "heavy" bomber -- this is a false notion. LW didn't have heavies. They were tactical in nature
- The best, most widely uesd, and frontline medium bombers of the war were NOT the He177.
- The same defensive armament can be found on other contemporary (representative) bombers.

The pros:

- Some dude wants a B-17 type bomber for Germans.

[Butcher]

What real reason for not adding it is there, besides the unreliablity, which was also a big issue in the Panther, Tiger II, Me163, and B-29.

I don't think the He-177 really ever entered combat, it was plagued with more problems then anything and was withdrawn multiple times in combat.

[Raphael]

didn't this get declined because all the engine and other mechanical problems it had can't be modelled in game?

[Ack-Ack]

I don't think the He-177 really ever entered combat, it was plagued with more problems then anything and was withdrawn multiple times in combat.

It saw plenty of combat on the Eastern Front and there were raids on England using them.  It was even pressed into service as a transport on the Eastern Front, namely to aid the Axis forces at Stalingrad.

ack-ack

[Tank-Ace]

Detractive points already brought up (if you'd done any checking beforehand)

- Limited numbers in service, limited to a small theater of operations
- Limited to milk runs in areas where enemy fighters had little chance of defending
- Limited impact on war
- Not just unreliable, but horribly so, and would be represented in an unhistorical way if modeled in AH
- The LW doesn't need a "heavy" bomber -- this is a false notion. LW didn't have heavies. They were tactical in nature
- The best, most widely uesd, and frontline medium bombers of the war were NOT the He177.
- The same defensive armament can be found on other contemporary (representative) bombers.

The pros:

- Some dude wants a B-17 type bomber for Germans.

Not cons, and just plain wrong respectively.


-The Me-163 also saw service in limited numbers.
-Valid argument for not adding it before the Ju-188 or Do-217, but not really an argument for not adding it at all.
- the same can be said of the Me-163, Tiger II, and various other stuff I think you've supported (or at least been impartial to)


And the He-177 would give us an Axis heavy bomber FOR THE MA.

[Karnak]

And the He-177 would give us an Axis heavy bomber FOR THE MA.

There is no "Axis" or "Allies" in the MA.  The Rooks, Knights and Bishops all have access to the B-17G, B-24J, B-29A and Lancaster Mk III.

My problem with it is that, by the numbers, it would dominate the B-17G, B-24J and Lancaster Mk III and be the best free bomber in the game.  That is what I dislike.  The idea that a historical failure would be utterly superior to three historically successful heavy bombers.