It is hilarious that you, the guy with no sources to back up his nonsense speaks about ignorance, its just too ironic!
Please, do point to the game breaking specs of the He-177 I posted a primary source that details speed, load and height, all the data needed to provide a clear picture of an aircraft's capabilities, not data from a website claiming a half cooked encyclopedia that provides no context for the speeds it claims.
I have flown the Ju-88 a lot and love it in spite of its weaknesses, your rank pulling is funny considering that you have a very skewed idea regarding aircraft performance.
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.
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. The fact that its faster after drop just makes it more appealing. 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.
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.
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.
Yeah sure, all that and the fact that any competent gunner will make you pay dearly unless you perform a well executed slashing attack.
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.
Since 1940 the 217E could carry 3t, the Whitley could do 3t as well and the He-111 did 2,5t. The LW did know what a heavy was, they were clear about it when ordering the He-177.
Never said they didn't know what it was, only that their bombers weren't representative of true typical mediums.
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.
Lol, you still insist on that moronic idea, I understand your need of a straw man when you have failed to provide any solid arguments and much less data or facts but it is cute to see you actually try it...
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.
The B-24 flys at around 280mph at 17k at full speed, and likely a bit slower due to having the doors open for calibration of the bomb sight. If the Do 217 were to use the same tactic, it would have released ord by the time the K4 made it to 12k, and possibly left the radar ring by the time the K4 made it to 17k.
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.
Go grab Griehl's book on the 177, it is clear in describing the aircraft many faults and the also many actions undertaken to fix them, by mid 1944 the aircraft had solved most of them and could operate reliably showing 80 and 90% readiness in the older Gruppe. You still have a cereal box knowledge of the aircraft and it shows, it goes well with your cereal box mentality by refusing to look at the data itself.
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.
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.
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.
Drag has a greater effect which is why it was funny to see you claim absurd speeds for bombers that had to use external loads or the racks to carry them, that being said weight also places a sizable burden on a bomber's speed and is not as negligible as you might want us to believe.
The Do 217 could carry 6600lbs of internal ordnance, more than a B-17.
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.
Full weight? Do 217M could probably make around 310-320mph, which is still very fast, and enough to make it much more survivable.
Please do point out which A variant used Ju-88S engines so the comparison can make sense?
You miss the point, its not a weight issue, its an issue of drag and engine power.
You are really trying to compare the difference caused in performance form fighters to a bomb encumbered bomber? Really? You really do not want my help to expose yourself, do you?
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.
