Variants of existing planes

[GScholz]

All this talk about new variants requiring new models is irrelevant. The OP did not mention anything about new variants not requiring work. Of course they do.

[bozon]

57mm Mollins totting Mosquito XVIII... 

Because there's nothing like lobbing 6 lbs AP high velocity projectiles at your enemies at a rate of 1 per second. Not to mention that you sit in a mossie while doing that.

[save]

Wrong, I found two better - though I do not want experimental stuff into AH invetory.
 




Junkers 88 P-5 with a 88mm !!!!, not a puny little 6-pounder, it spells "HO me you #"¤%/&(!!!"

57mm Mollins totting Mosquito XVIII... 

Because there's nothing like lobbing 6 lbs AP high velocity projectiles at your enemies at a rate of 1 per second. Not to mention that you sit in a mossie while doing that.

[Zimme83]

I like this one better, 1x57mm, 2x 20mm plus rockets and bombs.  (and i know its not qualified for being in AH)

[bustr]

Why not wish for the Hs129? It had combat variants with 30mm and 75mm which slaughtered Russian tanks. The draw back to the 30mm MK101\MK103 tungsten carbide round was it had to be fired sub 100m. But, no Russian tank's armor stopped the round fired at that range. There was even a German tank killing ace who flew down town streets to sneak up behind tanks hiding in ambush. The 75mm obliterated tanks because of it's AP round but, nearly stopped the plane in flight when it was fired.

[Ack-Ack]

Why not wish for the Hs129? It had combat variants with 30mm and 75mm which slaughtered Russian tanks. The draw back to the 30mm MK101\MK103 tungsten carbide round was it had to be fired sub 100m. But, no Russian tank's armor stopped the round fired at that range. There was even a German tank killing ace who flew down town streets to sneak up behind tanks hiding in ambush. The 75mm obliterated tanks because of it's AP round but, nearly stopped the plane in flight when it was fired.

The Bordkanone 7,5 also seriously hampered the performance of the Hs 129B-3, it was barely able to maneuver with the 75mm cannon.

[Krusty]

It also most likely only had single digits built. I'd be all for a Hs-129 with realitic wartime loadouts, but it would be a total pig worse than the Ju-87 and IL-2 combined. Overweight, underpowered, and in terms of AH probably dogmeat to any wirble or ground gun that's nearby. Still, it would add depth to the planeset for general MA ground attack duties.

[BuckShot]

Sluggish as it may be, I still want the 129. Setting up attack runs will be challenging and fun..

[bustr]

About 30 Hs129 B3 were completed before the factories in France were repatriated and the final numbers assembled at another location in Germany. The 7.5BK mussel brake was so well designed the plane only lost 6mph when a round was fired. The pilot could fire 4 rounds in 1000m while approaching a target. They were used in combat to great effect with single shot kills to tanks due to the tungsten carbide round. Losses were mostly due to air attacks on feilds and destruction by ground crew when abandoning forward locations. About 1200 of the B2 with Mk101\Mk103 were produced. The B3 was up to it's wing rivets on the eastern front in combat compared to the Ta152 H1.

[FBKampfer]

We could really use a 109G6/As, as it saw fairly significant use with units tasked with air defense. Most 8th AF scenarios and special events, this, or a variation thereof, would have been the most common fighter encountered. Luckily, it was virtually identical to the 109G-5/As, with exception of a pressurized cockpit. We could just call it a G-5, and while not technically correct, it would be effectively correct.

We could also use a G-14/As, which was also significant with interceptor units late in the war. I've seen a reluctance to use the K4 as a stand in, which is understandable, as the K4 exceeds G-14/As performance significantly at its critical altitude. However, the Bf-109G-10 would roughly match high altitude performance of the G-14/As, which is really the relevant attitude band for scenario use, but would significantly outperform it at lower altitudes, more closely matching the K-4. There's no ideal solution, so long as Hitech wishes to avoid subdesignations in the plane list. However a G-10 would work acceptably for scenarios, with certain restrictions as to employment.


We could also use an earlier Fw-190. An A-2 or an A-3 would be a good choice. Both would be fairly similar, the A-3 being fairly similar to our current A-5, but with about 500 less pounds of weight. The A-2 would be a pure fighter, carrying little to no ordnance, but would be the lightest we could get while still being representative. It would be slightly slower, however, using the 801C-1, producing 138 less horsepower at the driveshaft. However, it would retain all of the positive aspects of the 190's, high roll rate, stability, excellent dive characteristics, good acceleration, but it would be much more maneuverable, something on the order of a G-2's wing loading. This would be a very dangerous fighter in EW and midwar.

I would also like to see the 190F's ordnance options expanded. It was a robust, versatile, and highly capable attack aircraft, and that's just not represented in AH. It should also have an ETC503 rack under each wing for a 250kg bomb each, as well as provisions for centerline racks with 4 50kg bombs, and outer wing 300L drop tanks.

[ONTOS]

B-17 F please. She's a good looking bird.  I think the chin gun on the G model is not that seemly.

[Zimme83]

And it was added to counter the head on attacks, which we dont see in AH so the -17 F would be more suited for the MA than the G

(I know what you are thinking but no - very few players attacks buffs head on, at least not on any higher altitude.)

[bustr]

POTW takes any chance we get to shoot the pilot. Fastest way to get rid of bombers is to shoot into the windscreen.

[Krusty]

Bustr,

I don't doubt that as underpowered as it was, it had a lot of combat in areas where no air cover was present to knock it out of the skies. End-of-war Soviet troops and tanks often ran past the short-range typical sorties of their VVS friends. The VVS would have to keep moving up further and further to keep up with the ground forces they wanted to cover.

However, we can both agree that almost all of that was with the 30mm cannon variants. These were widely lauded by pilots as useless against late-war Soviet armor. The 75mm versions were not very common. They were dangerous to fly and only finalized production as the factory was over-run. Some sources say only 20 (give or take a few) made it off the production lines at the end of the war -- and that's no guarantee that they actually made it to a front-line unit. German aircraft production was notorious for losing hundreds of planes between factories and frontlines.

Reports of the actual 75mm in use are few and far between. It seems like only single-digits were ever in use, and in 1-off situations. Not even in unit strength. It doesn't matter if the firing of the gun "only" slowed the airframe down 6mph, because the extreme weight and underpowered nature of the engines made this a very bad combination. SG9 also found that firing the guns caused damage to the airframes, and they frequently jammed. It took many months to figure out a possible solution, stretching into Nov 1944, but by this time they actually destroyed their own airframes (to retreat at the end of the war) before anything could be done about it. Also, this wasn't a frontline unit testing against actual combat situations. It was an operational testing situation and they were using it in controlled tests.

I'd be all for the 30mm variants, but this 75mm pipe dream just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.


EDIT: The 75mm loadout on the Hs129B-3 would be akin to asking for the Do-335.

[BuckShot]

If the hs129 75mm was fired in combat, it should be added as an option.