He177 ?

[Pongo]

Poor Karnak,
19000 posts and the best years of his life fighting against planes that will "wreck" the game or arguing for planes that the game is a "joke" without.
It never gets old!

[Wmaker]

I see a free kill.

Kind of like the Il-2?

Neither have very good change at surviving without air superiority.

[Karnak]

Kind of like the Il-2?

Neither have very good change at surviving without air superiority.

Unless I am greatly mistaken the Il-2 is tougher, faster and more agile, but yes, essentially.

I'll grant that GVers would have a very different take on the Hs129 than I as a fighter guy do.

[GScholz]

Hs 129 had more and better armor protection, same speed within a mph or three, same power loading, slightly higher wing loading at loaded weight (180 kg/m2 vs. 160 kg/m2).

[Wmaker]

Unless I am greatly mistaken the Il-2 is tougher, faster and more agile, but yes, essentially.

Tougher it will most likely be, but HS129 wasn't fragile either. Many many times my flight has been over due to a radiator hit in Il-2. Considering the overall outset of the situation, I don't think the speed difference makes much difference. As far as the wing loading is concerned, it is my estimate that the slip stream of two engines over a larger wing surface area combined with slotted flaps will offset the difference at least to a degree.

[Karnak]

Hs 129 had more and better armor protection, same speed within a mph or three, same power loading, slightly higher wing loading at loaded weight (180 kg/m2 vs. 160 kg/m2).

What loadout would that be for?

People seem to focus on the 75mm gun when they talk about the Hs129, but from what I've read that was dangerously underpowered.  Much better were the Hs129s armed with Mk103 cannons or similarly sized weapons.

[tunnelrat]

What loadout would that be for?

People seem to focus on the 75mm gun when they talk about the Hs129, but from what I've read that was dangerously underpowered.  Much better were the Hs129s armed with Mk103 cannons or similarly sized weapons.

I have read the same thing, that it was a beast to control, especially with the long-barreled 75mm on it.

Doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see it in the game (after the He-117 )

[GScholz]

What loadout would that be for?

People seem to focus on the 75mm gun when they talk about the Hs129, but from what I've read that was dangerously underpowered.  Much better were the Hs129s armed with Mk103 cannons or similarly sized weapons.

"Maximum take-off weight" for the Hs 129 and "loaded weight" for the Il-2.

The B-2/R4 or the B-3 with the PaK 40 was not widely used. Probably less than 50 aircraft flew with that gun, and it was a beast to fly. The main anti-tank configurations would be the MK 101/103 and BK 37 versions.

[GScholz]

It flies pretty well in Il-2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czLxs_YKrT8

[Karnak]

It flies pretty well in Il-2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czLxs_YKrT8

Yeah, but Il-2 uses a generic flight model for all of its units with just some tweaks.

That said, I don't think the Mk101/103/BK 37 Hs129s were bad, just the BK 75 one that keeps getting requested.

[jag88]

"Maximum take-off weight" for the Hs 129 and "loaded weight" for the Il-2.

The B-2/R4 or the B-3 with the PaK 40 was not widely used. Probably less than 50 aircraft flew with that gun, and it was a beast to fly. The main anti-tank configurations would be the MK 101/103 and BK 37 versions.

Was the 3,7cm one actually produced? I have seen somewhere that it was just a prototype, it and the BK 5 one dying to the BK 7,5cm one. Plus, there would be no crewmen to put in further clips...

Pretty much the same could be accomplished with a Bf-110 with a 3,7cm option... but with 60 shells and a crewman to load them.



...or an APC option for the Me-410.

[Karnak]

Pretty much the same could be accomplished with a Bf-110 with a 3,7cm option... but with 60 shells.

That would make a nice addition when the Bf110s are updated.

...or an APC option for the Me-410.

I thought others more versed in Me410 stuff than I had said it was only ever loaded with HE for the BK5.

[jag88]

That would make a nice addition when the Bf110s are updated.
I thought others more versed in Me410 stuff than I had said it was only ever loaded with HE for the BK5.

AFAIK it was never used in an anti-tank role, it was tested and found viable, but not used.

[palef]

Just out of curiousity LOL... how many lancs were shot down?

Of the total of 7,377 Lancasters built (430 of them in Canada), 3,932 were lost in action. 53.3% in combat with the Reich!
SOURCE:
http://www.bombercommandmuseum.ca/lancbomber.html <--- imagine that, A SOURCE! WOWZERS!
And its not wikipedia! and it also says RAF got pwnt! hahaha

Im sure everything from bomb making material, the metals the lancs were made out of, the fuel in their tanks, even the co-pilots lunch was brought over from America...
Imagine if the 30,000 B17's and B24's werent on the scene?

Don't judge the He-177 by the status of the war!
The He-177 was a neato plane and we luft______ <-- (write whatever you want there), would like it added!
Danke sehr schone!

The USAAF needed 30,000 B24s and B17s to match the tonnage carried by half the number of RAF bombers, RAF bombers which ultimately did more cumulative damage to civilians and cities.

It's nice to see someone on AH laughing about a combatant arm that suffered more than 50% losses. 1 in 6 survived their first tour of 30 missions in RAF bomber command. 1 in 40 survived the second tour. Such was the political revulsion for the amount of damage caused in German cities by Bomber Command and the number of German civilians killed that rather than have a TV show in the 60s celebrating their achievements no one talked about it. There is no RAF "Memphis Belle" equivalent. Bomber Command didn't get a 1939-1945 campaign medal. Robin Gibb of BeeGees fame managed to organise a memorial which was dedicated by Queen Elizabeth in 2012. When you account for killed & captured airmen, you're into greater than 70% loss of crew, for a mission profile that ultimately became regarded as pointless. Only U-Boats suffered greater losses with 94% of U-Boats that entered service being lost.

I'm disgusted that anyone I'm even peripherally involved with can laugh about so much death and destruction, or try to play the "British stuff was made with US resources! Britain sucks! Nyahh!" card when it involves so much loss, on both sides.

[jag88]

The USAAF needed 30,000 B24s and B17s to match the tonnage carried by half the number of RAF bombers, RAF bombers which ultimately did more cumulative damage to civilians and cities.

It's nice to see someone on AH laughing about a combatant arm that suffered more than 50% losses. 1 in 6 survived their first tour of 30 missions in RAF bomber command. 1 in 40 survived the second tour. Such was the political revulsion for the amount of damage caused in German cities by Bomber Command and the number of German civilians killed that rather than have a TV show in the 60s celebrating their achievements no one talked about it. There is no RAF "Memphis Belle" equivalent. Bomber Command didn't get a 1939-1945 campaign medal. Robin Gibb of BeeGees fame managed to organise a memorial which was dedicated by Queen Elizabeth in 2012. When you account for killed & captured airmen, you're into greater than 70% loss of crew, for a mission profile that ultimately became regarded as pointless. Only U-Boats suffered greater losses with 94% of U-Boats that entered service being lost.

I'm disgusted that anyone I'm even peripherally involved with can laugh about so much death and destruction, or try to play the "British stuff was made with US resources! Britain sucks! Nyahh!" card when it involves so much loss, on both sides.

Ignore the trolls, it is not worth it.