He111 is HERE!!!!!!!!

[Krusty]

Wmaker's posts quite conventiently bypass the one major fact of the matter....

He claimed you can't carry bombs on the same rack torpedoes used. I got my rack names mixed up at first (I admit that) but I was quite right that the SAME RACK that carried torpedoes was widely used to carry bombs.

He then posts 3 screenfuls of info that simply proved he was wrong, only he doesn't admit that.

The only external hardpoints that I can see in the screenshots are for the torps.

Hard points for the torps aren't the same hard points that are used for the external bombs.

Actually, they are.[...]

My error was mixing up the name ETC2000 with PVC1006. His error was trying to pick a fight (and yes that's what his leading questions were trying to do) when he didn't know what he was talking about. I can even dig up a quote about Heinkels in North Africa that had the PVC (I know the proper name now) bomb rack but couldn't use their torpedoes because they didn't have the arm stops for them, so instead used bombs. The exact same rack. Torps OR bombs, switched out depending on what mission was needed.

Much like the Ju-88? I'm thinking its going to be relegated to the suicide torpedo role against CVs off shore in the MA for the most part.

The side guns on the He-111 could actually fold back somewhat flush. The problem is you only had a very tiny window to see through, so when they were aimed rearward you could barely see out the window. Theoretically with the dorsal gun, the side guns that can point backwards pretty far, and the ventral gondola, the He-111 should have better coverage of fire towards the aft. I know our Ju88 has this big dead zone to either side and along the middle plane. You have to jump up and down to cover the same target and it can be distracting. Theoretically the He-111 has better coverage but might be harder to shoot back with.

[nrshida]

Post your credible references to support your position then. That's how peer-review works.

[Plawranc]

I love this plane, I will fly it often I think.

Purely because it would be fun to bust GV's in it.

[GScholz]

Karnak, I wouldn't say that the He 111's rear is completely undefended. It has two MGs covering the rear; the one on top has the vertstab in the way of dead center, but the MG in the ventral gondola does not, and seems to cover at least a couple of degrees above horizontal as well.

You can just see the business end of that MG in this screenshot:

[Wmaker]

His error was trying to pick a fight (and yes that's what his leading questions were trying to do) when he didn't know what he was talking about.

You truly are an amazing piece of work. Considering the countless and countless times when you've talked nothing and nothing but nonsense, you have the nerve to spout out the above.

The reason I initially thought PVC wouldn't carry bombs were the differing distance between the carrying arms compared to ETC2000. Then I found out that there is a separate kit to fit different carrying arms for the torpedo. I admitted I was wrong in this very thread. You just slip from the thread quietly just like in the MK!08 vs. MGFF case..

There is a very very good reason why HT christened a BS-scale with your name!

[zack1234]

Post your credible references to support your position then. That's how peer-review works.

1nil to shida

Whats IPA Dolby?

by the way your fantastic

[Tilt]

All new stuff welcome...........

I agree that a separate H1 version should be available for a defined BoB role.......... after that its apretty versatile ac with loads of options re load outs..........

IMO if you want to see some real use in the MA HTC should add the He111 H20 R1 & R2 variants (7 troops & supplies??) ........... which would also serve very well in any future Stalingrad scenario.......... (He 111H's were modified to carry wounded troops out and suppliesin to the Cauldron)



and yeah.........More Yaks........... including the Yak 3.... cos I want it

[SmokinLoon]

The IJN demanded insane range for a twin engined bomber.  Mitsubishi wanted to go to four engines so they could provide armor and self sealing tanks, but the IJN wouldn't hear of it.  In order to get the demanded range they had to actually do a wet wing for the G4M, where the skin of the wing is also the fuel tank, and of course they couldn't do self sealing tanks.

The problem I see in the He111 is that its tail, the easiest and most popular attack point for fighters against bombers, is completely undefended.

It remains to be seen if the dorsal and ventral guns can pivot far enough to cover the dead six of the He111.  Obviously, the dorsal turret has that pesky vertical stabilizer in the way, but the ventral gun just may have a shot higher than parallel with the fuselage.

On that note, I'm very surprised the B25 top turret did not have the capability to pivot lower than it can in AH.  I've done a lot of digging to try and find a source showing the firing angles but have found nothing.  My flight instructor was a B25 pilot at the very tail end of WWII and also during the Korean Conflict and he couldn't remember if the top turret could fire lower than parallel or not.    

[chris3]

Extremely unlikely.  I can think of few things that would be as abused as that.

why not, it did see use in wwII and use your fantasi how it will be usable in the main. maybe like the old ship gunnery option.

cu christian

[Old Sport]

All new stuff welcome...........

I agree that a separate H1 version should be available for a defined BoB role..........

After looking around the internet, it looks like H1 to H4 versions at least participated in the BoB, and possibly the H5. The following says these versions including the H5 were in the BoB, and "the Blitz", which is just after the BoB. So if someone has more specific dates, that'd be nice.

H-1

The H-1 was similar to the H-0. One hundred and thirty six had been produced by the outbreak of war in 1939, and the type would see service in the campaigns of 1939 and 1940.

H-2

Five hundred and two H-2s were built during 1939. It differed from the H-1 in the choice of engine, using a 1,100hp Jumo 211A-3 to replace the A-1 of the H-1. During the production run three extra MG 15s were added, two beam guns, one on each side, just above the ventral gondola, and one forward firing MG 15 in the ventral gondola. A fifth crewman was added to man the beam guns.

H-3

The H-3 saw another increase in engine power, this time to 1,200hp with the Jumo D-1. More guns were again added, this time a second MG 15 in the upper nose. The front gondola gun was sometimes replaced by a 20mm cannon, used as an anti-shipping weapon. The H-3 also armour added to protect the crew positions. Five hundred and four H-3s were produced - 182 by Heinkel, 196 by Arado at Brandenburg, 126 by ATG at Leipzig.

H-4

The H-4 was the first of the H series to use external bomb racks. The port bomb bay was replaced by an extra fuel tank, while the starboard bomb bay remained available for bombs. However, most weapons were now carried on either PVC 1006 or ETC 2000 external bomb racks, which allowed the aircraft to carry a wider variety of heavier bombs. The payload remained at 4,400lbs on the 150 H-4s. Early aircraft were powered by the Jumo 211D-1, later replaced by the 1,400hp Jumo 211F-1.

H-5

The five hundred H-5s saw an increase in the variety of bombs that could be carried. As well as the 4,400lb combinations used by earlier models, the H-5 could also carry a single SC 2500 bomb (2500kg/ 5511lbs) or two 1686lb torpedoes. The H-1 to H-5 were the main variants of the He 111 used during the Battle of Britain and the Blitz.

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_he111H.html

One thing it says about the H4 with external bomb rack is that the port-left bomb bay had a fuel tank put in it.

In the graphic bombs are coming out of the left bomb bay, so that would indicate that it wasn't an H4:



So is it possible that HTC is going to release two versions, an H1-3 for BoB, and a subsequent H4-5 or greater for torpedos?

Inquiring minds want to know...   

[Lusche]

why not, it did see use in wwII and use your fantasi how it will be usable in the main. maybe like the old ship gunnery option.

cu christian

If the V1 would be modeled even remeotely realistic, you wouldn't be able to hit anything with it in AH. The V1 had even trouble to hit Geater London, which would be a sector sized target in AH.

[Ack-Ack]

If the V1 would be modeled even remeotely realistic, you wouldn't be able to hit anything with it in AH. The V1 had even trouble to hit Geater London, which would be a sector sized target in AH.

The reason why the V1 had troubles hitting Greater London was due more to the BDA reporting of double agents than the inaccuracies of the V1 itself.

[Lusche]

The reason why the V1 had troubles hitting Greater London was due more to the BDA reporting of double agents than the inaccuracies of the V1 itself.

I think you are underestimating the inherent inaccuracy of the He111 / V1 combination 

[hitech]

I do

But is this statistical meaningful?

HiTech

[Lusche]

But is this statistical meaningful?

HiTech

 

I'm 100% of myself, so... yes