Do 217

[Butcher]

Again karnak?

Have you read anything on the Greif since the last time we discussed this so you can actually put forward an argument for perking?  Any numbers?

In aces high we get a perfect aircraft, not the disaster the He-177 was, I've read all the discussions on the He-177 and it would be perked in my opinion because its frankly the jack of all trade when it comes to bombers.
It can defend itself well, good defensive firepower, 6k bomb load, one of the faster bombers at 20k with a bomb load and even faster on egress.

All this for a plane that was a doomed from the beginning, the problems were never fixed and the He-177 never really got to be used to its full potential.

When you line it up with all planes that carry 6k ords or less, the He-177 stands out and would either be 5eny or perked (my best guess).

[Volron]

In aces high we get a perfect aircraft, not the disaster the He-177 was, I've read all the discussions on the He-177 and it would be perked in my opinion because its frankly the jack of all trade when it comes to bombers.
It can defend itself well, good defensive firepower, 6k bomb load, one of the faster bombers at 20k with a bomb load and even faster on egress.

All this for a plane that was a doomed from the beginning, the problems were never fixed and the He-177 never really got to be used to its full potential.

When you line it up with all planes that carry 6k ords or less, the He-177 stands out and would either be 5eny or perked (my best guess).

It would be a 5 eny AND perked bird in my opinion.

[LCADolby]

+1, but can we have some Russian stuff to shoot at 1st

[Karnak]

If the He177A-5 only carries 6k it would not be nearly as problematic.  The claims are that it carried 13k.  So you'd have a bomber that is faster than any other heavy, carries almost as much as the Lancaster and has decent defenses, though not as strong as the B-17G's and it would likely be a bit fragile compared to the B-17 and Lancaster.  That seems to me to be a little to much on the plus side and not enough on the negative side to be uncontrolled.

Now, if it just carries 6.6k (3000kg) then it would probably be ok as a low ENY, free bomber.  It would offer tradeoffs instead of outright superiority.  Tradeoffs are good as they create choices and, as Sid Meier said, a good game is a series of interesting choices.  At 6.6k payload you'd have a bomber that was faster than the B-17, carries slightly more, but isn't as well defended and is much more fragile.  Both planes would have advantages over one another.  The B-24 would carry more than either, have speed and defenses comparable to the B-17G, but be more fragile and the Lancaster would have good deck speed, comparable speed up to the low 20ks, a massive bombload, extremely weak defenses and durability second to the B-17G.  All four heavies would have their place.

[Butcher]

If the He177A-5 only carries 6k it would not be nearly as problematic.  The claims are that it carried 13k.  So you'd have a bomber that is faster than any other heavy, carries almost as much as the Lancaster and has decent defenses, though not as strong as the B-17G's and it would likely be a bit fragile compared to the B-17 and Lancaster.  That seems to me to be a little to much on the plus side and not enough on the negative side to be uncontrolled.

Now, if it just carries 6.6k (3000kg) then it would probably be ok as a low ENY, free bomber.  It would offer tradeoffs instead of outright superiority.  Tradeoffs are good as they create choices and, as Sid Meier said, a good game is a series of interesting choices.  At 6.6k payload you'd have a bomber that was faster than the B-17, carries slightly more, but isn't as well defended and is much more fragile.  Both planes would have advantages over one another.  The B-24 would carry more than either, have speed and defenses comparable to the B-17G, but be more fragile and the Lancaster would have good deck speed, comparable speed up to the low 20ks, a massive bombload, extremely weak defenses and durability second to the B-17G.  All four heavies would have their place.

A normal bomb load was 6k, the B-17 could carry a huge bombload too but it cut into the range big time, I cant remember if it was 8k or not but I know a normal mission load was 4-4500k ords, maxed it could carry up to 15k I think.

177A-3 would only carry 6.2k on a normal bomb load, now the missiles however Im not sure what 3 would weigh, that would be the weight of it.

[Zacherof]

He177 would need to be perked, and as such would be pretty rare.

Ju188A-1 could be an MA staple.

With that i totally agree. I will vouch for the 188. We should also add in that italian bomber so Arlo will shush

Anything to get people out of their lancs and B-17's.

If they will just fly lower.
I dont go above 15k for the sake of accurasy, of course when i fly bombers theres only like 20 people on line 

[Tank-Ace]

If they would just fly at realistic speeds, Zacherof.....

[jag88]

In aces high we get a perfect aircraft, not the disaster the He-177 was, I've read all the discussions on the He-177 and it would be perked in my opinion because its frankly the jack of all trade when it comes to bombers.
It can defend itself well, good defensive firepower, 6k bomb load, one of the faster bombers at 20k with a bomb load and even faster on egress.

All this for a plane that was a doomed from the beginning, the problems were never fixed and the He-177 never really got to be used to its full potential.

When you line it up with all planes that carry 6k ords or less, the He-177 stands out and would either be 5eny or perked (my best guess).

The units that managed to operate the type for a while reached 80%+ readiness once spares and training became available.  This is what Griehl and Dressel's book on the He-177 concluded, it was the best summary I could find re the Greif:

"A pre-condition of the first use of the He 177 in anger was, naturally, that the crews would follow the operating instructions to the letter. Experience had shown that long-range flights with continuous power-loading were generally accomplished without any problems, but that any overloading of the powerplants could lead to damaged engines or engine fires. But that was not all.

Insufficient time was given over to preparing Luftwaffe bomber units for conversion onto the He 177; a problem that affected organisation and infrastructure on the ground, including personnel and technical support, as much as it did the training of aircrews. There were also instances when He 177s were delivered to units without having first received sufficient flight-testing. There was also a lack of suitable hangar space and parking facilities for large aircraft on operational bases thought to be outside the range of enemy bombers. In addition, there was a lack of good, well-trained workshop personnel and technicians able to maintain and service the new bomber.

In some cases, the complete re-equipment of individual bomber Gruppen within the prescribed time period failed due to low training levels and the lack of instruction for aircrews assigned to the He 177. Apart from that, for a long time there was a dire shortage of maintenance and servicing tools and equipment, not to mention replacement powerplants.

In May 1944 Major Schubert of the Luftwaffengeneralstab and Reichsmarschall Goring's Adjutancy was finally appointed to establish the principal reasons for the delays experienced in re- equipping Luftwaffe bomber units with the He 177. Nothing needs to be added to his report:

Most of the aircrew of units selected for re- equipment with the He 177 were operationally 'tired-out' and relatively few were from front-line units. The necessary personnel consisted primarily of Young, often inexperienced aircrews, and for reasons of capacity their conversion training at operational training and replacement Gruppen could only be completed in relatively few cases. Most of the young pilots had only nine to 12 months of practical flying experience prior to being transferred to such a complicated aircraft as the He 177.

Apart from that, the new operational crews had been trained on the Ju 88, and most had hardly any training in the art of night-flying. The necessary conversion training meant the compulsory withdrawal of operational He 177s for use as trainers, which in turn led to an overload of work for the technical personnel due to the numerous instances of damage suffered by these aircraft as a result of the training activities.

Matters were made all the more difficult by the fact that some of the ground personnel had not been pre-instructed on the He 177. In addition, the vast majority of the technical personnel arrived at their He 177-equipped bomber Gruppen several months after the units had first received their re- equipment orders. By spring 1944, some units were still short of about 50 per cent of engine fitters. Some of the other personnel first set eyes on the He 177 upon arrival at their assigned unit's airfield, their instruction and training on the Heinkel bomber having to start there and then.

The supply of aircraft servicing tools and appliances also did not keep up with deliveries of He 177s. Thus, for instance, the wing attachment cranes needed to facilitate powerplant changes arrived several months after the delivery of the aircraft themselves, and even then they were too few in number. For IV/KG 1 there was no specialised engine-changing equipment at all, and for this reason the unit had to suspend all training activities in mid-April 1944.

The 'engine circulation' (service units - repair depots - service units) also did not flow as it should have done at first, because of a lack of transportation. Neither the supply of new engines nor the return of DB 606/610s in need of repair functioned properly, least of all the supply of exchange powerplants to individual airfields. It wasn't until April 1944 that these shortcomings were effectively overcome, but they were never fully eradicated.

According to Major Schubert, the time expenditure required for the maintenance and servicing of the He 177 was incomparable with that of any other operational aircraft in service with the Luftwaffe. The jacking-up operation to change the main undercarriage tyres alone (which had to done at least twice as frequently as on other aircraft types) lasted some 2fi hours using the prescribed mechanical spindle blocks. Yet by early summer 1944 far too few of these 12-ton spindle blocks recommended by the manufacturer were available to He 177-equipped units.

The layout of the powerplants too did not exactly help attempts to carry out the necessary servicing work. Because of the inaccessibility of the coupled engines their dismounting took considerably longer than similar work on, for example, the Ju 88 or He 111. Due to the low training level of the technicians, a 25-hour control check on the He 177 usually took two, sometimes even three days.

Criticism was also made of the airfields selected to receive the He 177. Apart from Aalborg in Denmark, all of the others were already completely overcrowded, and lacked the potential for dispersal, camouflage and suitable protection of their aircraft against bomb splinters and shrapnel. For this reason low-level attacks by Allied aircraft caused great losses amongst the He 177s parked out in the open from 1944 onwards, especially as the airfields were now constantly within the range of both fighters and bombers. To make matters worse, this vulnerability to attack had a knock-on effect on He 177 training activities, which sometimes had to be reduced by up to per cent because enemy aircraft were on their way and air raid warnings came into force.

No consideration had been given to the fact that the technically complex He 177 required sufficient hangar space for maintenance and repair purposes, especially during the winter months. The delays caused by this shortcoming alone may well have been responsible for the postponement of He 177 operations by some six months to a year.

After the initial operations by I/FKG 50, the He 177 force never exceeded three incompletely- equipped Kampfgeschwader: KG 1, KG 40 and KG 100. This, and the type's inevitably late operational debut, as well as the increasing numerical superiority of Allied air power, prevented any large-scale He 177 operations in the West from 1943 onwards. The losses suffered in attacks on Atlantic convoys as well during the defensive operations against Allied landings, increased steadily and were soon so high that the Luftwaffe command had to suspend all further He 177 attacks.

The increasingly critical fuel shortage and the unavoidable decision of the defence authorities to allocate the highest priority to fighter production undoubtedly also led to the termination of He 177 production. Later, bombers such as the He 274 were granted at most a little extra time for completion.

The claim that simply because of the numerous engine fires the He 177 had become a 'Reichsfeuerzeug' (State Lighter) cannot really be upheld, for not all of the technical defects and difficulties described here were caused exclusively by the coupled Daimler-Benz powerplants, although in many cases there was a strong connection. As so often happens, a multitude of minor causes can have a big cumulative effect that not infrequently results in the sad loss of an aircraft and its aircrew.

In truth, the blinkered technocrats of the RLM, without any feeling for, or real understanding of, the protracted effort involved in the development of a modern bomber, carried as much responsibility as some First World War fighter pilots who had gained rank and prominence after 1933, but were completely overwhelmed by modern technology on numerous occasions.

Last but not least, the main portion of blame should probably be ascribed to the advocates of an unrealistic doctrine of air warfare, and who were astutely appraised and judged quite early on by the famous Heinkel designer Siegfried Günter:

'They really are somewhat crazy with their dive- bombing. It has already become like a mania!' "

Most of the issues were fixed but it was never a stellar aircraft, which is why it was to be replaced by the He-177B, its 4-engine version.  Had they done that in 1940 they could have had a far better aircraft and available when it could have meant something.

In then end, it was little different from the B29.

[jag88]

A normal bomb load was 6k, the B-17 could carry a huge bombload too but it cut into the range big time, I cant remember if it was 8k or not but I know a normal mission load was 4-4500k ords, maxed it could carry up to 15k I think.

177A-3 would only carry 6.2k on a normal bomb load, now the missiles however Im not sure what 3 would weigh, that would be the weight of it.

He-177s bombed London from fields on Germany carrying 5600Kg of bombs, you can do the conversion to medieval.



And those were A3s.

[Butcher]

He-177s bombed London from fields on Germany carrying 5600Kg of bombs, you can do the conversion to medieval.



And those were A3s.

You didn't read anything I posted did you? If you bothered to read up on the He-177-a3 you'd know the typical bomb load of a sortie (averaging all the A3 sorties) was 6.2k of ords. Just because one sortie flew with 12,000lbs of bombs (I have no clue if a 177 even flew with this much ords) doesn't mean every exact 177 flew with 12k ords every sortie.

You can do the research on that.

[Karnak]

At 5600kg it would need to be perked, no ifs, ands or buts.  Unperked and it would be so far above every other free heavy bomber that there'd be little reason to use any other heavy except for personal reasons, the same as somebody picking a P-40 now.

You can say "Sure, but the P-40 doesn't get things perked to protect it being a viable choice." and you'd be right, but you'd also be ignoring the larger picture.  There any many competitive fighters which are not perked, Bf109G-14, Bf109K-4, Fw190D-9, F4U-1, F4U-1A, F4U-1D, F6F-5, Ki-84-Ia, La-5FN, La-7, N1K2-J, P-38J, P-38L, P-47M, P-47N, P-51B, P-51D, Spitfire Mk VIII, Spitfire Mk XIV, Spitfire Mk XVI, Ta152H-1, Typhoon Mk I, Yak-3 and Yak-9U are all within the ballpark.

In comparison there are only three unperked heavy bombers, each offering tradeoffs when measured against each other, the B-17G, B-24J and Lancaster Mk III. The He177A-5 would make it four, and if it doesn't overwhelm the other three that would be great as more choices is better, but if it does overwhelm the others, or even just two of them, it would be bad as it would reduce choice.  If it has a 3000-3500kg bomb load then it would probably offer a genuine fourth choice, but much more than that and it starts encroaching on the B-24J and Lancaster Mk III still being genuine choices.  5600kgs and I suspect that even the B-17G might not offer enough to be a genuine choice anymore.

When I say "genuine choice" I mean something that somebody who was completely neutral about the four bombers might pick for one sortie or another based on the given sortie profile.  Somebody who doesn't care at all about the USAAF, RAF or Luftwaffe fanboi rivalry in the game, who doesn't care about the way each plane looks and just wants the best plane for the job at hand.  Right now, depending on the situation, the answer can be the B-17G, or it can be the B-24J and it can be the Lancaster Mk III.  It would be very nice to see the He177A-5 added to that list.  It would be unfortunate to see the He177A-5 remove one or more of them from the list.  One would be tolerable, more would not.

I'd like to see the H8K2 with its 2000kgs of bombs, five 20mm cannons defending and high durability, fast climb added to the list too.

[jag88]

You didn't read anything I posted did you? If you bothered to read up on the He-177-a3 you'd know the typical bomb load of a sortie (averaging all the A3 sorties) was 6.2k of ords. Just because one sortie flew with 12,000lbs of bombs (I have no clue if a 177 even flew with this much ords) doesn't mean every exact 177 flew with 12k ords every sortie.

You can do the research on that.

Funny you say that, had you bothered to read on the A-3 and their Steinbock missions you would know that most were undertaken by barely trained personnel flying mostly untested aircraft which affected both reliability and performance.  Check Price and you will learn that the pilots more familiar with the aircraft could and did use 2x1800Kg and 2x1000Kg against London, while the greener pilots were limited to 4x1000Kg loads.

Now, be so kind as to point out were I claimed that EVERY He-177 flew with that load?  The example I gave only proved that the He-177 COULD and DID fly with such a load in that particular mission for that particular distance, proving it was capable of doing so which would be the relevant bit of info for the game. 

In any case, the most telling part of your post is when you declare to not have a clue.

[jag88]

At 5600kg it would need to be perked, no ifs, ands or buts.  Unperked and it would be so far above every other free heavy bomber that there'd be little reason to use any other heavy except for personal reasons, the same as somebody picking a P-40 now.

You can say "Sure, but the P-40 doesn't get things perked to protect it being a viable choice." and you'd be right, but you'd also be ignoring the larger picture.  There any many competitive fighters which are not perked, Bf109G-14, Bf109K-4, Fw190D-9, F4U-1, F4U-1A, F4U-1D, F6F-5, Ki-84-Ia, La-5FN, La-7, N1K2-J, P-38J, P-38L, P-47M, P-47N, P-51B, P-51D, Spitfire Mk VIII, Spitfire Mk XIV, Spitfire Mk XVI, Ta152H-1, Typhoon Mk I, Yak-3 and Yak-9U are all within the ballpark.

In comparison there are only three unperked heavy bombers, each offering tradeoffs when measured against each other, the B-17G, B-24J and Lancaster Mk III. The He177A-5 would make it four, and if it doesn't overwhelm the other three that would be great as more choices is better, but if it does overwhelm the others, or even just two of them, it would be bad as it would reduce choice.  If it has a 3000-3500kg bomb load then it would probably offer a genuine fourth choice, but much more than that and it starts encroaching on the B-24J and Lancaster Mk III still being genuine choices.  5600kgs and I suspect that even the B-17G might not offer enough to be a genuine choice anymore.

When I say "genuine choice" I mean something that somebody who was completely neutral about the four bombers might pick for one sortie or another based on the given sortie profile.  Somebody who doesn't care at all about the USAAF, RAF or Luftwaffe fanboi rivalry in the game, who doesn't care about the way each plane looks and just wants the best plane for the job at hand.  Right now, depending on the situation, the answer can be the B-17G, or it can be the B-24J and it can be the Lancaster Mk III.  It would be very nice to see the He177A-5 added to that list.  It would be unfortunate to see the He177A-5 remove one or more of them from the list.  One would be tolerable, more would not.

I'd like to see the H8K2 with its 2000kgs of bombs, five 20mm cannons defending and high durability, fast climb added to the list too.

The US bombers are far better defended, that would still be their forte.  Now the Lanc:

- It still had a better range/load rate than the Greif.

Frontal defense: The Greif has a 20mm on the low position with a very limited field of fire, and only a single 7,92mm to complement that on the top.  Its firepower vs dead angles.

Top: Greif had 3x13mm in 2 turrets.

Bottom: The Greif has a single 13mm MG.

Tail: I would take the 2x13mm turret of the Lanc over the Greif casemate 20mm, it has just a very narrow field of fire that can be easily avoided.

On top of that the vulnerability of the Greif engines would have to be modeled, a couple hits and 50% of the power is gone, and the Greif cant fly on a single engine... at least the A3 IIRC.  It would be a very vulnerable aircraft in spite of its strong airframe.

[Butcher]

Now, be so kind as to point out were I claimed that EVERY He-177 flew with that load?  The example I gave only proved that the He-177 COULD and DID fly with such a load in that particular mission for that particular distance, proving it was capable of doing so which would be the relevant bit of info for the game. 

Here's something from aIRDOC He-177 by manfred griehl:

"Due to massive engine problems, and I.KG 100 losing 15 aircraft on three missions over england alone, there were almost as many losses due to the susceptible engine problems as there were to pilot error and now mostly inexperienced crews, not to mention the losses to enemy action". I Gruppe KG100 has been formed from teh I./KG 4 with 14 He 177A-3.  After heavy losses during the Battle of France the numbers available to KG 100 was reduced to 36. A large part of the Geschwader and its HQ units were disbanded with only a single Gruppe Active.
However the aircraft were exempted from daily operational and collected for a large force employment against allied ships and land targets but this operation never happened.

So 80% of the aircraft didn't even make it to the target, turned back due to excessive weight - engine failure, inexperienced crews and susceptible engine problems and its ok?

The B-29 is one thing, the He-177 was plagued its entire life span and couldn't even get 5 planes to a target area without problems.

I have no clue, sure whatever insult you want to throw around - fact is the me-163 was safer getting a pilot in the air and land then the He-177 was for a crew to fly in.

Sad fact is the HE-177 will be added in Aces high, If we had the Me-163 then the He-177 deserves its place along side of it.

[Denniss]

I have no clue, sure whatever insult you want to throw around - fact is the me-163 was safer getting a pilot in the air and land then the He-177 was for a crew to fly in.

You wouldn't make this statement if you'd have any knowledge about the Me 163 and it's dangerous behaviours and even more dangerous fuel.