He177 ?

[Karnak]

What were the engine failure rates of the A5 by late 1944?  Just curious... since you mention them...

They were irrelevant as the Germans had ceased offensive operations and all resources were being redirected to the defense of the Reich.

Please examine my large post on page 5.

[jag88]

None as bad as the He177, though late war Japanese fighters had more serious issues due to quality control, not design failure, than the He177A-5 had.

Gameplay currently:

Do you want a heavy bomb load at the expenses of light defenses?  Lancaster
Do you want heavy defenses at the expense of a light bomb load? B-17G
Do you want a compromise?  B-24J

After adding the He177A-5:

Do you want a heavy bomb load at the expenses of light defenses?  He177A-5
Do you want heavy defenses at the expense of a light bomb load? He177A-5
Do you want a compromise?  Why take a weaker option.

False.

The Greif is not better armed than the US bombers, it has a single MG131 to defend the belly with a limited field of fire, I posted the info, something that you like to ignore just because it does not fits your fantasies.  Tail? A MG151, but again with a very limited field of fire.

Basically, as long as you attack from under it is not that more dangerous than a Ju-88 and significantly weaker than a US bomber.  Ill repost the image, just to illustrate how full of it yo are:



It will certainly replace the Lancstuka, but is that an issue?  It was never the bomber, but the people willing to exploit a heavy bomber.  So they will exploit whatever is there.

Now, I'll grant that the B-17G and Lancaster Mk III are almost certainly going to be able to take more punishment than the He177A-5, but the essential issue is that with a free He177A-5 effective choice is removed from the game.  Games need decisions and there is no decision when you have a theoretical unperked heavy bomber lineup that looks like B-17F, B-17G, B-24D, B-24J, H8K2, Halifax Mk III, He177A-5, Lancaster Mk III, P.108, and Pe-8 there isn't really much choice if your criteria is just the most effective.  The answer, in the mechanically perfect AH, will always be the He177A-5.  Sure, the others will see some use for personal reasons, but the most effective ceases to be situational as it is now and becomes a single, universal answer.

Which is why everyone flies the same aircraft, the one perceived to be best, right?  Your claims are simply absurd, some people will flock to the new heavy, others will keep flying what they like better or is better armed.

Now, that being said, a theoretical unperked heavy bomber lineup that looks like B-17F, B-17G, B-24D, B-24J, H8K2, Halifax Mk III, Lancaster Mk III, P.108, and Pe-8 suddenly has those choices restored, though it has some redundancy in it, but it lacks a German heavy.  Nonetheless, should that be acceptable, what then do you think an appropriate perk price for the He177A-5?  It would not be as survivable as any of the current perk bombers, but it would have much better hitting power than either the Ar234B or Mosquito Mk XVI.  Would an initial perk price of about the same as the Mosquito make sense? Trade survivability for hitting power?
Sometimes adding something actually takes something away.  In the case of the He177A-5 it takes away a meaningful choice, if added per the OPs wish.

Please specify why the Greif should be perked, in which category is it so much better than the current options.  Be specific.

[jag88]

They were irrelevant as the Germans had ceased offensive operations and all resources were being redirected to the defense of the Reich.

Please examine my large post on page 5.

August was the last month they operated, what was the failure rate? Something, anything to back your assertions.

[GScholz]

Now, I'll grant that the B-17G and Lancaster Mk III are almost certainly going to be able to take more punishment than the He177A-5, but the essential issue is that with a free He177A-5 effective choice is removed from the game.  Games need decisions and there is no decision when you have a theoretical unperked heavy bomber lineup that looks like B-17F, B-17G, B-24D, B-24J, H8K2, Halifax Mk III, He177A-5, Lancaster Mk III, P.108, and Pe-8 there isn't really much choice if your criteria is just the most effective.  The answer, in the mechanically perfect AH, will always be the He177A-5.  Sure, the others will see some use for personal reasons, but the most effective ceases to be situational as it is now and becomes a single, universal answer.

... and then it would undoubtedly get perked like every other perked plane that once dominated the MA, like the F4U-1C. This isn't even an issue!

Sometimes adding something actually takes something away.  In the case of the He177A-5 it takes away a meaningful choice, if added per the OPs wish.

I don't subscribe to the point of view that adding something can subtract from the game. If that was the case we should really only have one toejamty plane, because by your point of view anything added would "subtract" usage from that one plane.

[GScholz]

They were irrelevant as the Germans had ceased offensive operations and all resources were being redirected to the defense of the Reich.

Please examine my large post on page 5.

That is as irrelevant as the He 177 was in R/L. AH isn't a historical game. We even have the Arado 234 for diddly's sake! All that did was sit in the snow and wait for the fuel that never arrived.

[Karnak]

False.

The Greif is not better armed than the US bombers, it has a single MG131 to defend the belly with a limited field of fire, I posted the info, something that you like to ignore just because it does not fits your fantasies.  Tail? A MG151, but again with a very limited field of fire.

Basically, as long as you attack from under it is not that more dangerous than a Ju-88 and significantly weaker than a US bomber.  Ill repost the image, just to illustrate how full of it yo are:

(Image removed from quote.)

I didn't claim it was as well defended.  I said it was better, which is a general rating.  Its speed + guns + bombload means the tradeoff to take the B-17G becomes too steep to be reasonable.  The B-24J is too fragile to really compete, though the He177A-5 will likely share that fragility.  The speed makes the belly attack tactic much harder to pull off as anybody who tries it against Ki-67s, which are slower than the He177A-5, can tell you.

It will certainly replace the Lancstuka, it is far better suited for what already is a dumb tactic.

That is a dumb tactic.  It is also a strawman and disingenuous to bring it up as the vast majority of Lancaster sorties in AH utilize the bombsite and the He177A-5 would largely replace those as well.

Which is why everyone flies the same aircraft, the one perceived to be best, right?  Your claims are simply absurd, some people will flock to the new heavy, others will keep flying what they like better or is better armed.

What people fly is a complex mixture of what they like, what is potent and what is socially acceptable.  How much weight they give each of those things varies.  From a game design perspective you don't want to have a single choice that is significantly more correct than the other choices.

Please specify why the Greif should be perked, in which category is it so much better than the current options.  Be specific.

Its speed, bomb load and defensive guns combine to make it dominant over any other heavy bomber other than the B-29.  Its guns are not the best and the Lancaster slightly exceeds it in terms of bomb load, but its speed is far better than any other free heavy bomber, its bomb load is only slightly lower than the very vulnerable Lancaster and its guns are still fairly good.  Primarily it is the speed and bomb load that push it into perk territory, but its guns are good enough to help it in that direction as well.  Its primary weakness is fragility, likely to be modeled by a somewhat weaker fuselage and engines easily set alight.  The B-29 is also rather easily set alight and that did not hamper its being perked.

[Karnak]

I don't subscribe to the point of view that adding something can subtract from the game. If that was the case we should really only have one toejamty plane, because by your point of view anything added would "subtract" usage from that one plane.

No.  Adding the Lancaster increased choices.  Before the Lancaster was added the only choice was the B-17G, but the Lancaster Mk III added the choice of light defenses in favor of a heavy bomb load against the choice of heavy defenses in favor of a light bomb load.  Each was situationally the better choice.

That is just one example, but in most cases adding something adds choices.

If the He177A-5 were a perk plane, as distasteful as I find that, it would solve the problem, but as you can see from recent exchanges, jag88 (I am always inherently suspicious of German fans with "88" in their name due to its skinhead association) sees it as a free plane, not a perk plane.

[GScholz]

I guess 88mm never crossed you mind...

Why are you arguing this? Jag88 doesn't get to decide what gets perked or not, nor do you. Are the AH skies filled with Arados and 262s? NO! Why? Because the perk system works!

That you don't like the Greif is as irrelevant as the most of your posts in this thread. If it is added sometime down the road, just don't fly it, and I'm sure you'd still love to blast it out of the sky with your wooden wonder.

[Franz Von Werra]

from wikipedia.com  

From first paragraph
Luftwaffe aircrew nicknamed it the Luftwaffenfeuerzeug (Luftwaffe's lighter) or the "Flaming Coffin" due to the serious engine problems on initial versions of the aircraft. When these problems were later rectified, the type was successful, but it could not be deployed in large numbers due to Germany's deteriorating situation in the war."


From further down at 'engines' part:
Starting with the He 177 A-3/R2, a modified engine nacelle with a new "power system", the Daimler-Benz DB 610, each of which consisted of a pair of Daimler-Benz DB 605s set up to work as one as the DB 606 had been, was used to eliminate the tendency for engine fires. With the introduction of the DB 610 came several improvements including the relocation of the engine oil tank, the lengthening of the engine mountings by 20 cm (8 in), the complete redesign of the exhaust system which also facilitated the installation of exhaust dampers for night missions, and the setting of a power limitation on the engines which resulted in greater reliability. These modifications, supposedly numbering 56 of both major and minor varieties, were successful as far as eliminating engine fires were concerned, but other minor problems with the transfer gearbox between the two component engines of each "power system" and their shared propeller remained."


10th version: He-177 A-3/R2  NO MORE FIRES, MOST BUGS FIXED!
16th verison: He-177 A-5 had 826 made, bug free!
33 versions total!
MR HITECH, MR PYRO, TEEEEAAR DOOOOWN THIIIS WAALLL, give us a neato BIG bomber!  

Following list is from this site:
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he177-variants.html

He 177V1 to V8
8 prototypes built in total. He 177V4 and subsequent aircraft powered by DB 606 A/B engines.

He 177V-1.
[Source: Unknown]
He 177A-0
Pre-production series, 35 built. First to use the "Cabin 3" cockpit with "fishbowl" framed glazed nose, as with production A-series.

He 177A-1
First production series, 130 built. Armed with a single MG 81 in the nose, a single MG FF cannon in the forward end of the Bola ventral gondola, a remote controlled dorsal turret with a single (later twinned) MG 131, and a single tail mounted MG 131.

He 177A-1/R1
Equipped with a supplementary pair of aft firing MG 81 in the rear of the Bola ventral gondola.

He 177A-1/R2
Equipped with a sighting station in the rear of the Bola ventral gondola for a remotely controlled ventral turret housing a single MG 131.

He 177A-1/R4
Equipped with a supplementary aft firing MG 131 in the rear of the Bola ventral gondola and a manned aft dorsal turret containing an MG 131.

He 177A-1/U2
Zerstörer heavy fighter with a pair of limited-traverse 30 mm MK 101 cannon in enlarged Bola lower nose mount, twelve conversions.

He 177A-2
Proposed four-man pressurized variant with reduced defensive armament of six MG 81 and a single MG 131, never built.

He 177A-3
Second production series, 170 built, with 1.6 meter-longer lengthened rear fuselage. Sixteenth and subsequent aircraft powered by DB 610 A/B engines.

He 177A-3/R1
Powered by two Daimler-Benz DB 606 A/B engines, fifteen built.

He 177A-3/R2
Improved electrical system. MG FF cannon replaced by an MG 151 cannon in the Bola ventral gondola. Larger redesigned tail position, MG 131 replaced by MG 151 cannon in the tail position.

He 177A-3/R3
Anti-shipping version capable of using the Henschel Hs 293, equipped with Kehl control gear.

He 177A-3/R4
Bola Ventral gondola lengthened by 1.2 m (3 ft 11 in) to provide room for the FuG 203b Kehl III missile-control equipment.

He 177A-3/R5
Planned, never-built Stalingradtyp version armed with a 75 mm Bordkanone BK 7,5 cannon based on the 7.5 cm PaK 40 installed in the ventral Bola gondola, also used on the Junkers Ju 88 P-1, based on a small number of 177As actually field-equipped as A-3/Rüstsatz 5 machines, with the KwK 39-based Bordkanone BK 5 cannon.

He 177A-3/R7
Torpedo bomber version abandoned in favor of the He 177A-5, only three built.

He 177A-4
Proposed high altitude pressurised version, never built under the designation, and later developed into the Heinkel He 274.

He 177A-5
Main production series, 826 built. Standardized the A-3's longer rear fuselage, strengthened wing, shortened undercarriage oleo legs, increase in maximum external bombload.



He 177 A-5 tail gun position, with MG 151 cannon.
[Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-676-7972A-34/Blaschka/CC-BY-SA]
He 177A-5/R1
Version optimized for Fritz X and Hs 293 guided bombs, equipped with Kehl control gear.

He 177A-5/R2
Armed with a single MG 81 in the nose, a single MG 151 cannon in the forward end of the Bola ventral gondola, a pair of MG 81 in the rear end of the ventral gondola, a pair of MG 131 in an FDL 131Z remotely controlled forward dorsal turret, a single MG 131 in a manned aft dorsal turret, and a single tail mounted MG 151 cannon.

He 177A-5/R4
Simplified bomb rack installation, equipped with Kehl control gear.

He 177A-5/R5
Tested with a supplementary pair of MG 131 in an FDL 131Z aft ventral remote turret aft of the rear bomb-bay, only one built.

He 177A-5/R6
Replacement of the forward and central bomb-bays with enlarged, full-fuselage-depth fuel tanks.

He 177A-5/R7
Pressurised cockpit study with a projected ceiling of 15,200 m (49,869 ft) and similar reduced armament to the He 177A-2.

He 177A-5/R8
Armed with FDL-series remote gun turrets. Abandoned as a result of difficulties with the turrets, only one built.

He 177A-5 Grosszerstörer
Anti-bomber variant based on the He 177A-5, armed with up to 33 spin-stabilised 21 cm calibre rockets obliquely mounted in fuselage, replacing bomb bays and auxiliary fuel tanks, and most likely based on components of the 21 cm Nebelwerfer 42 infantry barrage rocket system. Five examples delivered in January 1944 for operational trials. Abandoned due to increasing numbers of Allied escort fighters.

He 177A-6
Meant to be a "32 metric-ton" loaded-weight long-range bomber, as a planned improvement over the A-5 version, the A-6 dispensed with the rear manned dorsal turret, and retained the A-5/R2's single MG 151 flexible cannon at the front of the Bola, the flexible ball-mount MG 81 in the "fishbowl" nose glazing, along with the regular A-series FDL 131Z remote forward dorsal turret, and standardized the rear armament with the planned Hecklafette manned HL 131V quadmount MG 131 machine gun turret for the first time. Not produced, due to building volume of design work on the He 177B-series four-engined aircraft.

He 177A-6/R1
Replacement of the forward and central bomb bays with full-fuselage-depth fuel tanks (as on the A-5/Rüstsätz 6 modification) and the addition of external bomb rack under the new fuel tank bays, capable of carrying a single 2,500 kg (5,511 lb) bomb or Fritz X/Hs 293 in addition to the rear bomb-bay loadout, if equipped with Kehl control gear. Range of 5,800 km (3,604 mi), only six test conversions built, from A-5 versions.

He 177A-6/R2
Equipped with a redesigned fuselage nose of improved aerodynamic form, abandoning the earlier "Cabin 3" A-series cockpit, with the new nose being generally the same as intended for He 177A-7 and all He 177B development versions. Retained the FDL 131 remotely controlled forward dorsal turret, a single flexible-mount MG 131 in the rear of the Bola, a pair of MG 151 cannon in a remotely controlled FDL 151Z "chin" turret (to be standardized on the B-version) at the front of the Bola, and a manned HL 131V MG 131which itself was wrecked in a mishap in late July 1944.

He 177A-7
High-altitude bomber with an extended wing spanning 36 m (118 ft 11/3 in) and with DB 610 A/B engines instead of the intended 3,800 PS (3,748 hp, 2,795 kW) DB 613 "power systems", using pairs of twinned DB 603 engines. Six examples, for wing tests, converted from He 177A-5 airframes, but never fitted with the intended He 177B-series advanced cockpit. One captured by American forces, scrapped postwar and believed buried under the grounds of Chicago's O'Hare International Airport.

He 177A-8
First proposed He 177design to feature four individual engines, using the A-3 or A-5 fuselage with a new wing design, and either Daimler-Benz DB 603 or Junkers Jumo 213 engines with Heinkel He 219 style annular radiators. Remained a paper project only, before re-designation as the "He 177B-5" by August 1943.

He 177A-10
Proposed four-engined He 177design, similar to the He 177A-8, but based instead on the He 177A-7 definitive production fuselage, with manned rear dorsal gun turret omitted, and re-designated as the "He 177B-7" in August 1943.

He 177B
Developed as the direct, "separate four-engined" development of the "coupled engine" powered He 177A-series, four prototypes ordered (He 177V101 to V104) with three built and flown under DB 603 power. Originally postulated in postwar aviation books to have been a "cover designation" for the never-produced, paper-only He 277 Amerika Bomber design competitor.

He 177H
Initial project designation for the Heinkel He 274.

He 177V38
An A-5 (Werknummer 550 002, bearing Stammkennzeichen of KM+TB) – documented use was as testbed for FuG 200 Hohentwiel ASV maritime patrol radar with flexible MG 131Z nose gun installation, speculated to have been intended for the installation of an enlarged bombbay to be used in the Junkers Ju 287. A common myth claims V38 was the prototype for a German "atomic bomber" (purportedly capable of carrying a fission device as a droppable weapon). Remains found at Prague's Rusiye field on V-E Day.

[jag88]

I didn't claim it was as well defended.  I said it was better, which is a general rating.  Its speed + guns + bombload means the tradeoff to take the B-17G becomes too steep to be reasonable.  The B-24J is too fragile to really compete, though the He177A-5 will likely share that fragility.  The speed makes the belly attack tactic much harder to pull off as anybody who tries it against Ki-67s, which are slower than the He177A-5, can tell you.

1- You set an option for heavy defenses, the US bombers will win that, dont backtrack.

2- No, the He-177 is not fragile, is one of those dumb things that get often repeated until becomes a mantra, the aircraft was stressed for inclined flights and flew at 680kph after dropping its bombs during Steinbock (Nowarra).

3- Fully loaded it makes 445kph, so pretty much everyone will catch it.

That is a dumb tactic.  It is also a strawman and disingenuous to bring it up as the vast majority of Lancaster sorties in AH utilize the bombsite and the He177A-5 would largely replace those as well.

And that is the only are in which will clearly replace another bomber, people who dont care about the aircrafts history or nationality and just want to suicide with a lot of bombs.  Others will use it since it is better defended than the Lancaster, but that is life in AH, it has happened so many times...

What people fly is a complex mixture of what they like, what is potent and what is socially acceptable.  How much weight they give each of those things varies.  From a game design perspective you don't want to have a single choice that is significantly more correct than the other choices.

And this one isnt.

Its speed, bomb load and defensive guns combine to make it dominant over any other heavy bomber other than the B-29.  Its guns are not the best and the Lancaster slightly exceeds it in terms of bomb load, but its speed is far better than any other free heavy bomber, its bomb load is only slightly lower than the very vulnerable Lancaster and its guns are still fairly good.  Primarily it is the speed and bomb load that push it into perk territory, but its guns are good enough to help it in that direction as well.  Its primary weakness is fragility, likely to be modeled by a somewhat weaker fuselage and engines easily set alight.  The B-29 is also rather easily set alight and that did not hamper its being perked.

What speed are you talking about, with what load, I love to see some sources since I am the only one quoting numbers here and not just whining about speed.  B-29 carries a lot more bombs, flies a lot higher, a lot faster and is far, far better defended than anything else, attempting to set a paralell here between them is simply ridiculous.

[jag88]

If the He177A-5 were a perk plane, as distasteful as I find that, it would solve the problem, but as you can see from recent exchanges, jag88 (I am always inherently suspicious of German fans with "88" in their name due to its skinhead association) sees it as a free plane, not a perk plane.

This from you again?

Listen pal, I have nothing to do with skinheads or any other moronic movement of the kind..

[Franz Von Werra]

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he177-specifications.htmlHEINKEL He 177

Specifications - He 177 A-5/R2

Type:
  Long range heavy bomber
Origin: Heinkel Flugzeugwerke
Designer: Siegfried Gunter
Crew: Six
First Flight: November 1939
Service Delivery: 1942
Retirement: 1945
Production:
    Prototypes: 8
    He 177 A-0: 35
    He 177 A-1: 130 (Produced from January 1942 - January 1943)
    He 177 A-3: 615 (Produced from November 1942 - June 1944)
    He 177 A-5: 349 (Produced from December 1943 - August 1944)
    Total: 1,137


Engine:
Model: Daimler-Benz DB 610
Type:
24-cylinder liquid-cooled inline piston engines
Number: Two        Horsepower: N/A

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimensions:
Length: 22 m (72 ft 2 in)
Wingspan: 31.44 m (103 ft 1¾ in)
Height: 6.67 m (21 ft 10 in)
Wing area: 100.00 m² (1,076.40 ft²)

Weights:
Empty weight: 16,800 kg (37,038 lb)
Loaded weight: 32,000 kg (70,548 lb)

Performance:
Maximum Speed:
– 565 kph (351 mph) at 6,000 (19,685 ft)
Stall speed: 135 kph (84 mph)
Combat radius: 1,540 km (957 mi)
Ferry range: 5,600 km (3,480 mi)
Service ceiling: 8,000 m (26,246 ft)
Rate of climb: 190 m/min (623 ft/min)
Wing loading: 303.9 kg/m² (62.247 lb/ft²)

Armament:
1 × 7.92 mm MG 81 machine gun in nose
1 × 20 mm MG 151 cannon in forward ventral Bola gondola position

1 × 13 mm MG 131 machine gun in rear ventral Bola gondola position

2 × 13 mm MG 131 machine guns in FDL 131Z remotely operated forward dorsal turret, full 360° traverse

1 × 13 mm MG 131 machine gun in manned Hydraulische Drehlafette HDL 131I aft dorsal turret

1 × 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon in tail position

Bombload:
Up to 6,000 kg (13,227 lb) of ordnance internally/7,200 kg (15,873 lb) externally or up to 3 Fritz X or Henschel Hs 293 PGMs (w/FuG 203 Kehl MCLOS transmitter installed)

[Tank-Ace]

Then why in hell where you arguing the point?  External stores will affect performance, if they do they will reduce the speed to something closer to the Greif's which carries a heavier load and better defenses, in that case, why take the Ju-188?

They lessen the speed..... to a still respectable, and use full ~310 mph, depending on exact load outs, variant, and altitude. This was my entire point.


Currently, we have two free bombers who can make more than 300mph at a reasonable altitude, and another that does 301 at 40k. The Ju188 and Do 217 would be class of the field for speed.


They would see very decent use, particularly in the role of a raider, and fast-strike bomber.


And most importantly, they wouldn't be unhistoricaly dominant. Screw the 177, we don't need it. Little to no special event usage, and laughably unbalanced in the MA's.

[Tank-Ace]

Let me just ask, what are the reasons you would NOT take the He 177 in any given situation, considering it would be THE most tactically flexible level bombing platform in the game?

I want specific numbers for things like range, ordnance capacity, and speed, if they are contributing factors in your choice.

[Karnak]

I guess 88mm never crossed you mind...

Yes, it does, but 88 is used for other purposes in the USA among skinheads.  My suspicion is not unfounded in my experience.

However in this case it is not that, nor is it the 88mm gun.  I did not recall that jag88 was the gentleman I previously discussed this with and I owe him an appology for having raised the issue here at all.

jag88, my sincere apology for having mentioned that at all.  It shall not be mentioned again nor do I think you share that kind of thought pattern.  I'll gladly defend you from such accusations.