Remove the fantasy - Ar-234

[STEELE]

Prove it. There is no evidence that is true. None.

Absence of Evidence in not Evidence of Absense.
I agree with adding the forward guns option, but
If you dont want rear guns on the 234, dont include them in TAS
 

[Chalenge]

You have it backwards. It actually means that no evidence of guns on the 234b doesn't mean they didn't have guns. It just means you don't have the evidence. It's not implication it's logic.  The funny thing is Lyric posted the evidence, you all just missed it.

Ha! FLS you are failing terribly. We have evidence that Lyric has found through thorough research that the aircraft never had guns. The C-model had them but never saw combat.

Yes you are well versed in the appeal to ignorance but since that approach has been revealed it wont work. Now you are simply beating a dead horse.

[Chalenge]

Absence of Evidence in not Evidence of Absense.
I agree with adding the forward guns option, but
If you dont want rear guns on the 234, dont include them in TAS
 

You first! Tell us how old you are! 13? Where do you live? Have any children? Is grey matter of limited quantity in your family?

I think so. Bolt from that you twit!

I think its absolutely hillarious that this accusation has been proven to be false time and time again and yet there are still children so stupid as to repeat it! Morons!

[USRanger]

Nice tantrum.

[Chalenge]

Alright Ranger. Lets say someone spreads a falsehood about you! Prove who you are! They lie over and over and it only gets to be bigger and bigger lies as it continues. Tell me who you are! Tell us all about you! How old are you? Show us your picture! Oh! Hey! Your wife looks like you bought her online! Real class from some of these clowns!

Real cheap shots and all because of one malcontent that we told couldnt reenter our squadron.

Yes. Your comment shows a real maturity too.

[Chalenge]

And for your information, most of the books/AAR's/documents I have go back far as 1940s, I don't recall a single book written past 1975, nice attempt to troll however.

Hyperbolic euphemisms will not prive your point either. You are simplay attempting to be clever (I would say 'cute'). Fail.

[lyric1]

Some 234's did have the cannons mounted and that's why we have them in Aces High. 

Well lets play devils advocate here.

Lets assume that there was "Some" AR-234B's that had rear facing guns.
I seem to recall there is AHII criteria for skins to be included in the game along the lines of it had to be in squadron strength & had to see service in WWII.
This standard if I recall correctly has been used a few times on threads regarding various issues for inclusion beyond just skins.

So did rear facing guns on the Arado AR-234B ever make it to squadron strength?
Did rear guns on the Arado AR-234B see service in WWII?

I think if that standard could be met for AHII there may be an argument for inclusion.

However it seems most think that only "Some" AR-234B's had rear facing guns.





  Advocate off.

I still say no B model ever carried rear guns.

[NOT]

I like how you resort to name calling when someone doesn't agree with you   ..... Are you 13????????

 






NOT

[FLS]

Well lets play devils advocate here.

Lets assume that there was "Some" AR-234B's that had rear facing guns.
I seem to recall there is AHII criteria for skins to be included in the game along the lines of it had to be in squadron strength & had to see service in WWII.
This standard if I recall correctly has been used a few times on threads regarding various issues for inclusion beyond just skins.

So did rear facing guns on the Arado AR-234B ever make it to squadron strength?
Did rear guns on the Arado AR-234B see service in WWII?

I think if that standard could be met for AHII there may be an argument for inclusion.

However it seems most think that only "Some" AR-234B's had rear facing guns.





  Advocate off.

I still say no B model ever carried rear guns.

Let's say that 234B's came from the factory with the guns which explains the mounts and holes in the fuselage and the pilots had the guns pulled because the weight wasn't worth their limited effectiveness and getting the airplane off the ground was already so difficult they needed JATO rockets. That makes the removed guns a field mod which is not allowed in Aces High. Steel was a strategic material in short supply. They wouldn't build unused gun mounts into all the 234Bs, that's just silly, but any pilot will tell you that when weight makes takeoff a problem you dump whatever weight you can.

Also, Smith and Creek are professional writers who repackage old material in shiny new books. Price is a primary reference for everybody writing about German aircraft in WW2. Don't forget that Price's job for the RAF in 1945 was interviewing everybody available involved in designing, building, and flying the new jet aircraft.

[chris3]

I like the Arado. Love it actually. The designers really knew what they were doing! But I have a few problems with it as it is.

1) The Arado never had rear facing cannons. I fly this plane. I fly it without the cannons. It doesnt need them.
2) The Arado never flew in formations. Formations should be removed for this aircraft. It doesnt need them and the formations are only there for scoring. With the survivability of this plane it can make multiple trips just fine.
3) The Arado is not a bomber. The Arado is an attacker. I understand about the level bomber role being a possibility since the function was there to unstrap and use the sight and bomb. I also understand it was never done that way. The Arado was most often (I woud say always) used as a dive bomber (attack).

So this is a three way wish. Remove the guns. Remove formations. Add an attack role.

Add forward facing gunpods if you wish.  

 

point 1
thay did!

point 2
thay did mayby not as close as in game but it was mostly not used in singel mode in the Kampfgeschwader.

point 3
in game and more in reality it isnt / wasn t a good idea to made a dive attack in that plane. it was primary designed as a level bomber.
sure with some skill you can do everything with that but thats not the way it is desingend for.
at the attack of Lütich thay start a dive from 4000m to 2000meters in a small angela at the end thay was fast enough to be save and thay dropp in level flight.

sure there was some other desings of that plane with forward firing cannos, this version could be named as an attacker.

cu christian

[Butcher]

Hyperbolic euphemisms will not prive your point either. You are simplay attempting to be clever (I would say 'cute'). Fail.

Whatever you are smoking, I just proved the P-51D, you show no claim otherwise.

[Karnak]

Asking people to prove that it didn't have the cannons is unrealistic.  It is very hard, impossible in most cases, to prove a negative.  What is a lot easier is to prove a positive.  So it therefore falls to the "It had cannons" side to prove it.  No evidence has been found to support that position yet, so go off and find it.  I see some blithe statements such as chris3 saying "point 1, thay did!"  Well, if it is that easy for you to know with the certainty of that statement, chris3, surely you can supply the data, no?

[FLS]

So your theory is that it was designed for cannon, the periscope was mounted and designed to allow aiming the aircraft to shoot the cannon, the cannon mountings were installed in the aircraft, the holes for the barrels and ejected shells were installed, but the cannon themselves were never installed in any aircraft?



And Alfred Price, who was in the RAF, and who was tasked in 1945 with finding out everything he could about German jet aircraft, is not the authority on this subject, even though he is one of the few people who talked to the designers, builders, and pilots of these aircraft?

I guess we'll agree to disagree.  

[lyric1]

Let's say that 234B's came from the factory with the guns which explains the mounts and holes in the fuselage and the pilots had the guns pulled because the weight wasn't worth their limited effectiveness and getting the airplane off the ground was already so difficult they needed JATO rockets. That makes the removed guns a field mod which is not allowed in Aces High. Steel was a strategic material in short supply. They wouldn't build unused gun mounts into all the 234Bs, that's just silly, but any pilot will tell you that when weight makes takeoff a problem you dump whatever weight you can.

Also, Smith and Creek are professional writers who repackage old material in shiny new books. Price is a primary reference for everybody writing about German aircraft in WW2. Don't forget that Price's job for the RAF in 1945 was interviewing everybody available involved in designing, building, and flying the new jet aircraft.

Holes in the aircraft for the guns & shell chutes is the problem on the B model no evidence of any B model has these holes.

Check out what a Rustsatz is & how it is applicable to the AR-234.
When you find out the facts on those you will realise that your premise is impossible.

Back to the question at hand.

  Advocate on.

Did any AR-234B with rear guns see service in WWII?
Did the AR-234B rear guns make it to squadron strength?

[Karnak]

So your theory is that it was designed for cannon, the periscope was mounted and designed to allow aiming the aircraft to shoot the cannon, the cannon mountings were installed in the aircraft, the holes for the barrels and ejected shells were installed, but the cannon themselves were never installed in any aircraft?



And Alfred Price, who was in the RAF, and who was tasked in 1945 with finding out everything he could about German jet aircraft, is not the authority on this subject, even though he is one of the few people who talked to the designers, builders and pilots of these aircraft?

I guess we'll agree to disagree.  

All the data found thus far supports the position that the Ar234B did not have rear facing cannons.  The image you linked there is not useful as it doesn't have any supporting data to back it up.  There is no footnote to a primary source.