New Allied Tanks, Axis Bombers and Russian Fighters.

[Eric19]

FWIW, I just upped a B25C with full fuel and 3k ords and the fastest I could get was 279mph ( w/ MIL power) at it "prime" altitude of 14,500ft.  Weight was 32,200 lbs.  That is as fat as it can get and the fastest it can get under those circumstances.  The chart shows 285-ish when the B25C has a weight of 28,000 lbs. 

The He111 is shown to be able to fly 273 mph when loaded to 26,000 lbs which is a typical combat loading, but not max evidently.  My sources are not accurate enough to give me specifics as to what exact weights are with specific loadings, only end result weights are listed.  Evidently the He111 stopped using the internal bay to carry the 8/50 kg bombs and instead used external mounts to carry 4/500kg or 4/250kg bombs instead as a "standard" load out.     

I nver said anything about max fuel did I............................ .....nope so there ya go

[skorpx1]

FWIW, I just upped a B25C with full fuel and 3k ords and the fastest I could get was 279mph ( w/ MIL power) at it "prime" altitude of 14,500ft.  Weight was 32,200 lbs.  That is as fat as it can get and the fastest it can get under those circumstances.  The chart shows 285-ish when the B25C has a weight of 28,000 lbs. 

The He111 is shown to be able to fly 273 mph when loaded to 26,000 lbs which is a typical combat loading, but not max evidently.  My sources are not accurate enough to give me specifics as to what exact weights are with specific loadings, only end result weights are listed.  Evidently the He111 stopped using the internal bay to carry the 8/50 kg bombs and instead used external mounts to carry 4/500kg or 4/250kg bombs instead as a "standard" load out.     

If you ask me, the He-111 and B-25 are about the same. Bomb loads differ of course but they're both good bombers for their time period. The He-111 was around since the beginning of the war and it could be a nice addition to the EW plane set. I'd add it to the list of planes that need to get into the game.

[Rino]

     If you use them both as level bombers maybe, although I think the B-25 gets the edge in defensive fire.  As an attack aircraft there is
no comparison.

[skorpx1]

     If you use them both as level bombers maybe, although I think the B-25 gets the edge in defensive fire.  As an attack aircraft there is
no comparison.

The He-111 is easy prey for anything with a few .50 cals or even a single cannon. The .303's suck in game and only do major damage if you manage to hit a vital part of the plane. I know that it takes a good 700-900 rounds from a Spit1/Hurri1 to take down a Ju-88. I'd imagine the He-111 would be slightly less or the same.

However I do think the B-25 is a bit better in attack terms. The load out is better but not by much and it can be loaded up with a bombsite or multiple .50 cals instead.

[Tank-Ace]

The He-111 was actually a pretty durable plane.

[skorpx1]

The He-111 was actually a pretty durable plane.

Defensive armament sucked so hard that Paris Hilton would be jealous. The armor is useless if you don't have the guns to back it up. It's like putting a 1930's 50mm gun on a M60 and making it fight against T-72's.

[Tank-Ace]

Or its like having a twin .50 mount on a bomber in a possition that is rarely usefull in the defense of the aircraft..... like the B-25C for example.

Oh, and 7.92's aren't entirely useless. I've defended myself succesfully with them before in the Ju-88. Hell, I've done it in the G4M, and thats a lot tougher to do.


Skorpx, I get the feeling you don't quite know what you're talking about here.

[skorpx1]

Or its like having a twin .50 mount on a bomber in a possition that is rarely usefull in the defense of the aircraft..... like the B-25C for example.

Oh, and 7.92's aren't entirely useless. I've defended myself succesfully with them before in the Ju-88. Hell, I've done it in the G4M, and thats a lot tougher to do.


Skorpx, I get the feeling you don't quite know what you're talking about here.

Ju-88/G4M have all but one gun in the back, that's at least 5/6 guns in the rear. Not to mention the Betty has a 20mm cannon that puts the hurt on attackers. Iv'e tried gunning against competent fighters in both planes, rarely have I won the fight but its still hard to do. In a real life scenario even a .45 cal pistol was something to worry about. In game you're lucky if you take damage from a .45/deal damage with one. What you're saying is that you can fight off P-51's, Spit's and La-7's in a Ju-88 without any problems then i'd love to see the films. I never said the guns were useless, they're just incompetent of proper defense.

[Tank-Ace]

Ju-88/G4M have all but one gun in the back, that's at least 5/6 guns in the rear. Not to mention the Betty has a 20mm cannon that puts the hurt on attackers. Iv'e tried gunning against competent fighters in both planes, rarely have I won the fight but its still hard to do. In a real life scenario even a .45 cal pistol was something to worry about. In game you're lucky if you take damage from a .45/deal damage with one. What you're saying is that you can fight off P-51's, Spit's and La-7's in a Ju-88 without any problems then i'd love to see the films. I never said the guns were useless, they're just incompetent of proper defense.

Uhhhh..... yeah, and you do realize you're incredibly lucky if you can get all 4 guns on target in the Ju-88, right? Theres a ridiculously small zone where it can happen, but the enemy has to be DIRECTLY to your six, and cannot be above or below your tail.

As for the betty, if you didn't notice, I'm talking about the 7.92's/7.7mm's. Yeah, the betty has a 20mm, so what? Its not that difficult to avoid, and the balistics are pretty poor. Kill was made with the 7.7's.


Hell man, I've shot down Il-2's with the pair of 7.92mm's on the SdKfz 251. They are adequet if you aim carefully.

[skorpx1]

Uhhhh..... yeah, and you do realize you're incredibly lucky if you can get all 4 guns on target in the Ju-88, right? Theres a ridiculously small zone where it can happen, but the enemy has to be DIRECTLY to your six, and cannot be above or below your tail.

As for the betty, if you didn't notice, I'm talking about the 7.92's/7.7mm's. Yeah, the betty has a 20mm, so what? Its not that difficult to avoid, and the balistics are pretty poor. Kill was made with the 7.7's.


Hell man, I've shot down Il-2's with the pair of 7.92mm's on the SdKfz 251. They are adequet if you aim carefully.

Like I said, I want to see the films of you "easily" bringing these planes down with the 7.7's on the G4M/Ju88. Especially the kill in the 251 against the Il-2.

[Tank-Ace]

I never said it was easy, kid. I said it was possible; don't put words in my mouth.

You need to be skilled and lucky. And I'm not playing right now, but I'll see if I still have some of the films.



If I had to take a guess, I'd say you would be lucky if you could nail being lucky.

[skorpx1]

I never said it was easy, kid. I said it was possible; don't put words in my mouth. I like how you call me kid when you're 16? 17? A year or two older than me. does it make you feel like a big boy? Or is CoD not cool anymore?

You need to be skilled and lucky. And I'm not playing right now, but I'll see if I still have some of the films. Luck doesn't exist - Its just a term that weak minds use to explain things beyond them.



If I had to take a guess, I'd say you would be lucky if you could nail being lucky. If I had to take a guess, it'd be skill over luck.

I'm not playing now either, but from prior experience I know that .303's and small caliber guns like that suck hard against other planes. Ever try to take down an enemy plane with the dual .30's in a TBM? If the guns were aimed right, like at the engine/cockpit or possibly the wing-fuselage merging area then yes you could take down another plane. Iv'e stated that, but you say that you have done it successfully (Meaning only moderate damage done and no loss of a drone) in a Ju-88 and a G4M. If you have a dual .30 cal and you're shooting at an enemies engine from 600 yards away and hes pounding you with 6+ .50 cals or 4+ 20mm's do you think you'd win that fight at that distance? Even if you do manage to knock out his engine the superior firepower and range will kill you before you kill him (provided the enemy knows what he's doing.)

[Tank-Ace]

I'm not playing now either, but from prior experience I know that .303's and small caliber guns like that suck hard against other planes. Ever try to take down an enemy plane with the dual .30's in a TBM? If the guns were aimed right, like at the engine/cockpit or possibly the wing-fuselage merging area then yes you could take down another plane. Iv'e stated that, but you say that you have done it successfully (Meaning only moderate damage done and no loss of a drone) in a Ju-88 and a G4M. If you have a dual .30 cal and you're shooting at an enemies engine from 600 yards away and hes pounding you with 6+ .50 cals or 4+ 20mm's do you think you'd win that fight at that distance? Even if you do manage to knock out his engine the superior firepower and range will kill you before you kill him (provided the enemy knows what he's doing.)

Yeah. I used to be a pretty good shot with the bomber guns. Start shooting at D1000, you get hits on the cocpit, and by D800, you can have them limping off with a PW or engine damage, or even be rewarded with that satisfying explosion that marks a kill.


I called you kid, because you're refusing to accept that 1) 7.92's can be effective if well-manned, and 2) the He-111 is not significantly worse than the B-25. You blatantly ignore all evidence saying you're wrong, and the word of everyone who has played longer than you. Generally, you are acting like a child. And if 16 is 2 years older than you, then you're 4 years younger than me. Considering that would put you at 9th grade this year, yeah, theres a fairly significant difference in age and experience.


Luck exists. Why? The projectile trajectory is randomized slightly. Since you can't perfectly predict where exactly they will go, that introduces some element of chance. Thus, you can be lucky. On top of that, a difference in aim point so small as to be nearly unnoticable can be the difference between hitting the pilot, and putting a bunch of holes in the plane all around him. So, yeah, luck definitely exists.

Now, do lucky charms, and bad luck from breaking a mirror, and crap like that exist? No, but thats an entirely different subject, and is only tangently related to luck in the sense that we're using it.


And finally, yes, skill makes up a larger component than luck, but skill is most likely beyond you.

[Karnak]

Back before there were formations I once took out an F4U-1C, P-51D, Bf109G-10 and N1K2-J with the guns on a Ju88A-4.  The N1K2-J did finish me off as well though.

[skorpx1]

Yeah. I used to be a pretty good shot with the bomber guns. Start shooting at D1000, you get hits on the cocpit, and by D800, you can have them limping off with a PW or engine damage, or even be rewarded with that satisfying explosion that marks a kill. (If damage is being done at 1000 yards then you are probably aiming right. Most people don't know that this happens. .30's are accurate but they aren't terribly damaging if shot at the tougher parts such as the mid-fuselage area.)


I called you kid, because you're refusing to accept that 1) 7.92's can be effective if well-manned, and 2) the He-111 is not significantly worse than the B-25. You blatantly ignore all evidence saying you're wrong, and the word of everyone who has played longer than you. Generally, you are acting like a child. And if 16 is 2 years older than you, then you're 4 years younger than me. Considering that would put you at 9th grade this year, yeah, theres a fairly significant difference in age and experience.
(I'm 15 here, I said you were probably 1 or 2 years older, Also nobody else has spoken a word on the matter of guns other than Karnak.)

Luck exists. Why? The projectile trajectory is randomized slightly. Since you can't perfectly predict where exactly they will go, that introduces some element of chance. Thus, you can be lucky. On top of that, a difference in aim point so small as to be nearly unnoticable can be the difference between hitting the pilot, and putting a bunch of holes in the plane all around him. So, yeah, luck definitely exists.

Now, do lucky charms, and bad luck from breaking a mirror, and crap like that exist? No, but thats an entirely different subject, and is only tangently related to luck in the sense that we're using it. (Luck doesn't exist. Never has, never will.)


And finally, yes, skill makes up a larger component than luck, but skill is most likely beyond you.

I never said the plane wasn't tough, and I never said 7.92's were useless. I stated that guns such as .30's and 7.92's are useful if aimed right. They just aren't reliable. Its like using a 109F4 without a cannon. Do the rounds do damage? Yes. Will you get far with only the 700-ish rounds you have? No. You might get 2 or 3 kills but in the end there was a reason why other planes have better guns. Armor on planes gets better and thus guns have to get better.


As for luck there is no such thing. Random encounters/coincidences are to blame here. The rounds do get sent in different directions but its hardly noticeable. A "lucky chance" isn't really luck, its just that the round has cycled through a random flight path option set and it just happens that you got a round that went where it was supposed to. Mathematics and science have a large part here - its like flipping a coin. 50/50 shot of landing heads or tails, you don't control what it does after you flip it and while its in the air. If it lands on heads and you called tails well it wasn't bad luck - it was just what happened when the force of the flip and the air resistance did when it landed. Like I said, luck is for the weak minded.