I have sources, I even showed you my electronic sources for the Do 217. As I said, my hard-copy sources are in storage from when I moved. If I find the time, I'll go look for them, but I'm not going to put besting some twit on the internet very high on the priority list, given that I'm gone from 8AM to 7PM most days.
Lol, all you have showed is that you have is a big mouth and little to back it up, a couple websites with no context for the info nor credible sources makes the speeds therein meaningless. Keep running your mouth, thats all you have.
The fact that it can carry lancaster loads at lancaster speeds, with defenses more like what the USAAF had on its heavies means that it will largely replace the lancaster.
Big whoop.
The fact that its faster after drop just makes it more appealing.
How much faster? Where are your sources? Do you even have a number? Or just more BS as usual?
That it can carry B-24 sized loads faster than a B-24 and with arguably comparable armament means a lot fewer B-24's and B-17's.
Comparable on top only, significantly worse on front, back and under... how is comparable again? Yeah, dedicated US bomber pilots will certainly jump at the chance of piloting an obscure German bomber, right... just like they did with the Lanc, right?
Given you think speed largely irrelevent, its no supprise you think my ideas are skewed. You litterally lack a fundamental understanding of what I'm saying, it seems. If thats not stupidity, its sure as hell ignorance.
Oh, I understand your crappy arguments, they are just ridiculous.
Seeing only one bomber as the primary platform isn't good for the game, especially when its completely contradictory to what actually happened in real life.
Well yeah, even a half-competent gunner will shread your aircraft with a Ju-88 if you make your attacks like an idiot.
But if you yourself are an even half-competent fighter pilot, a B-17 will have to have an actively good gunner to keep you from knocking them down.
Contradictory to real life? You must really hate those Me-163, Ki-84, Nikkis, F4U4 and all those other rare aircraft, right? Lets have only newcomers pilot late war German aircraft, only they would be able to adequately reproduce the lack of training of the 1944-45 LW so we can be truthful to RL!
Btw, when did the He-177 become the single bomber in the game? Oh, it doesnt even exist? SO you are just making crap up? Go figure! But you are right, AH has a history of being unable to deal with aircraft that become too dominant... wait...
Never said they didn't know what it was, only that their bombers weren't representative of true typical mediums.
The British also had a 3t medium, they had one even before the LW, the rest were playing catching up but by 1940 they were the state of the art.
LW didn't have a need for a long-ranged bomber capable of carrying a large load at high-speeds with heavy defenses. Thats not how they opperated. In large measure, their airforce was tactical, rather than strategic. They could easly make due with a shorter-ranged medium carrying a medium-heavy load at respectable, if not stellar, speeds. They really and truely thought the USSR would collapse at their first blows, and thus didn't plan and prepare for a protracted conflict across such vast distances.
Oh really? Allow me to introduce you to the Ural bomber program, google it since you are clearly clueless and have no idea of what it is and what type of bomber designs it spawned... no, the "Ural" bit is not about urinals, its a clue about the project's purpose and requirements, I dont want to give anything away but it has to do with geography, you might want to look east... no, the other east...
You lack a basic understanding of either what constitues a typical sortie in the MA, or what goes into survivability.
Most bomber sorties are less than 250 miles in length, and are made against tactical targets such as ord, hangers, or the towns. In this case, warning tends to be very brief (assuming the radar is up), giving just enough time for a K4, climbing at better than 4500ft/min at the deck and never dropping below 4000ft/min untill above 15,000ft, to intercept and shoot down a set of B-24s flying at 17000ft.
Essentially, what you fail to grasp is that not having to fight makes for higher survivability than having better tools to fight an enemy who still has a decided advantage.
What you fail to understand is that if your weapons are not a good deterrence, they will chase you until they get you.
Thats with only around 10 months of the war left, for an aircraft that had been in service since 1942. Considering the LW had pretty much disintegrated by Oct. or Nov. of 1944, thats really only a few months of any major action, if it even saw any major action, given the lack of targets.
You don seem to see the contradiction in your post, in service since 1942, but since they saw no major action according to you they are not worthy of inclusion? Want me to list the in-game aircraft produced in lesser quantities and which saw even less combat? They dropped guided bombs and sank ships in the Atlantic and Mediterranean, bombed London during Steinbock, supplied Stalingrad (or at least tried), they were the main weapon used against the ships supplying the Normandy beacheads sinking 68000t and damaging 35000t of shipping at great cost, frequently interdicted Soviet rail hubs and many were spent in desperate low level attacks against Russian tanks when Army Group Center collapsed in 1944.
Yeah, they clearly did nothing...
I'm not saying some 177's weren't decent, I'm saying that the majority weren't, and a Do 217 or Ju 188 would serve us better overall, Special Events (which are a big thing for a lot of people) included.
Thats were you are wrong, read Griehl, with the A5 it was no longer an aircraft thing, it was a training and logistic issue that handicapped its initial deployment. A very telling example is II/KG40 that had a 80% serviceability rate in January 1944, and that was with A3, they were simply the first guys to get them and knew the aircraft's faults and were able to operate them successfully, the green guys with 15 hours on the type and no understanding of the aircraft's kinks were hastily thrown into battle without adequate ground support and suffered badly.
With the A5, II/KG100 reported 90% availability in September 1944.
There is a reason why the Do-217 was killed, what it could do the Greif could do better, that is why it died in 1943 as 177 production started to pick up and replaced it as the missile carrier.
Bottom line, the 177 is pretty low on the priority list, given that its historical significance is negligible, it would be unrepresentative in the game, and use in special events is essentially zero.
Lol, your ignorance is funny.
The Do 217 could carry 6600lbs of internal ordnance, more than a B-17.
And? Surprised it beat what it basically was a MPA? Depending on source you will see 2,5 to 3t internal, want a better load? Get performance killing wing racks. Or better yet, get a Greif and load double that.
Now I'm not a first-hand expert at this, but I'm fairly certian internal ordnance doesn't result in increased drag.... Just saying.
Now this is just cute!
Just saying? After all your mouth running and grand standing... just sayin?
May it be that you got around to reading about induced drag and the effect weight has on it?
May it be that you, the grand bomber ace with 2 years under his belt suddenly remembered that once liberated from its internal bombload, specially a large load such as the Lanc's, the bomber usually gains speed?
Lol, from "you are an ignorant" to "just sayin man"!!!!
Full weight? Do 217M could probably make around 310-320mph, which is still very fast, and enough to make it much more survivable.
Ah! S0 we are reducing our expectation now... Maybe. Sources? No? Go figure... Still would love to have it.
You miss the point, its not a weight issue, its an issue of drag and engine power.
Any situation where the airframe is streamlined to increase speed, or more horsepower is applied to overcome drag is entirely relevent to the current discussion. You're simply implying that the laws of physics don't act universally across all class of aircraft in an attempt to discredit me.
You're carping over weight, when it is almost entirely irrelevent to top speed. Any example of a heavier aircraft going faster with less power illustrates this.
Induced drag begs to disagree.
You are using Ju-88s A and S so indicate differences in shape, which is true, very different shapes... but your analogy turns a little silly when you fail to mention that there are a few hundred hp of difference between he As and S engines. Can we appreciate the virtues of streamlining when there is a massive difference in Hp... can we?
But I digress, you are only trying to weasel your way out of a dumb comparison when you tried to create a parallel between fighters and bombers while ignoring induced drag which tends to be a lot more important form bombers due to... the bombs and them dropping away mid-flight... odd you didnt know that, you being a super duper 2 year bomber ace!
Man, you barely need any help to discredit yourself.
