Author Topic: First Ju-87 Whine (Read 801 times)

Wotan · « **Reply #15 on:** November 28, 2002, 11:04:44 AM »

20mm wont a fek of difference in the main. All versions of the ju87 are slow, climb poorly and have poor rear guns. Look at the il2. Its nothing but cannon fodder. Despite what widewing would have you believe so is the sbd and tbm. However in the ct and events where there is certain level of plane parity the 7mm may not be the quick killer but they will get kills.

In bob, cap and BoB ct setups I got most of my kills after my 20mm was out in the 109e.

The d4 was the one of the least produced models. The d5 has no dive flaps and was final "close support version". Its roll was different then the d1. While the d3 was a "transitional" model from the "divebombing" stuka to a "close support" stuka. It had added armor for pilot protection.(ofcourse its will be facing osties 99% of time in ah) and still retained its dive flaps.

2 20mm will rarely kill a gv and its not like you will be able to run anyone down or keep a gun solution long enough to get kills except maybe in a vulch situation or if you attack completely unseen. Its will be a hanger queen in the main no matter the load out. However events (like the 1 upcoming) and in previous events (BoB and AK) the stuka has/had a roll. And dont under estimate the ct. More hanger queens get flown there in 1 month then the main. The 202 in the current set up owns.

HT gets the best bang for the buck out of this model.

Wmaker · « **Reply #16 on:** November 28, 2002, 11:20:57 AM »

There were D-5s with dive breaks. AFAIK all D-5s didn't have them but for example Gefechtsverband Kuhlmey's D-5s indeed had them...and the 20mm cannons aswell. Kuhlmey's unit used its D-5s in the dive bombing role.

Because of Gefechtsverband Kuhlmey and its impact in the final battles during the Continuation War D-5 was definately the model I would have liked to see but I'm VERY happy to see any D-model!

I suspected HTC was going to model BoB-era Stuka (B-model) with the G-model so I for one am pleasently surprised.

Here's a photo where both MG 151/20s and the dive breaks are visible.

frank3 · « **Reply #17 on:** November 28, 2002, 02:41:44 PM »

im to lazy to read the whole forum but what plane is that? it looks like a STUKA

Imp · « **Reply #18 on:** November 28, 2002, 03:37:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by frank3
im to lazy to read the whole forum but what plane is that? it looks like a STUKA

Thats because it is one

Staga · « **Reply #19 on:** November 28, 2002, 06:05:24 PM »

From "German Warplanes of World War 2":

brady · « **Reply #20 on:** November 29, 2002, 04:39:25 AM »

F4UDOA:

From a thread on our Squad forum a reply by Me:

"Wotan is bang on Comrad Fork,even if we get the G with those dual Osty cannon's I doubt very much if it will be used very much at all past the "Novality Perioud". Look at the Huricane "D", prety much same leval of effectiveness gun wise, If I had a choice I would take the Huricane IIC every time for GV hunting.

The reasion being It its a better tool for it, curently the way the armor model is that is simply the fact's.

The Stuka I realy feal for the Lager Magority of players is simply a case of be carefull what you ask for we may just get it, I am happy in way that they added it for now it is out of the way, and they can do other stuff. It does have a very important place in any early war set up, so from the historical aspect it is a valued component, but in terms of it's value as a MA tool, it has none or next to non. For any CT set up, other than Early war It will be dogmeat,and in an early warset up it will fair better than it's historical counterp[art simply because it is a later war model, any special event's set up it will be the same, I remember when or squad intercepted a flight of 12 IL-2's one day in TOD, they were all dead in like 2 min. I doubt the Stuka would live that long. It is a vehical for creating imershion. If I were to milk run a base, Most likely I would take a JU 88 with (4) 500KG's and 25% fuel instead of the Stuka.

If I had the plate in front of me with all the posable choices I would not of Picked it personaly, but I am by the same token not entierly unhappy it is hear. "

I am glade they picked the models they did only because they fit into the Historical event's and a broader timeframe of possable CT set up's.

The late war Japanese planes with cannon arament like the George and far more formadiable aircraft, thye cant even be compard to the stuka.

Dowding (Work) · « **Reply #21 on:** November 29, 2002, 05:30:41 AM »

Wotan - you may think it is a 'waste of time' modelling planes like the stuka, but you ought to consider that many AH players are only here for scenarios and special events. I am one of them. If it weren't for the CM group and HTCs support of the concept I would be long gone by now; the MA is a boring, repetitive kindergarten most of the time. I use it as a practise arena, if at all. I find that most of the time, I'm killing inexperienced newbies in a FFA. It's like clubbing seals sometimes, and I'm not particularly outstanding a player. In the scenarios however, it's all about the team and individual pilot skill counts for much less. I find it much more challenging an environment and I also get to fight against the best in AH on a more regular basis. And lose of course, but that's part of the fun.

You might argue that historical matchups are not what people want and cite the CT as an example. IMO, despite the hard work of the CT group, the combat theatre is not supported because of the lack of emmersion in terms of a strategic picture. Scenarios set goals and targets along with a command structure - this adds heaps to the emmersion. The lack of numbers is always going to be a problem, since no-one wants to fly in an empty arena. A classic catch-22 situation, definitely.

The mission theatre sounds like it will be very successful and will start to add that structure I'm talking about. But it needs the holes in the planest filled, and without the stuka, there is a very large hole indeed.

Wotan · « **Reply #22 on:** November 29, 2002, 05:46:53 AM »

Quote

Wotan - you may think it is a 'waste of time' modelling planes like the stuka

Dunno where you get that.........

I fly scenarios and events as much as anyone. I was a CT CM for awhile. I dont think I ever said it was a 'waste of time'. I am on the command staff for Niemen. I was Co for the BoB scenario.

What I said was 2 x 20mm or 2 x 7mm wont any difference in the main at all. Withlimb between 1200-1500 fpm (which drops off considerably above 12k) and a top speed at about 250 mph clean it wouldnt matter if ht modelled a d4 or a d5. You wont see it in the main. It terms of event and ct planning the d3 makes sense because it could sub for earlier variants. The D3 also allows the G1 to be modelled. If you read the other 6 Stuka threads you will see exactly what I have said.

Or just go back up and read my 1st reply in this thread.

The Ct gets 10% or so of the main with a weely peak at about 65. "Unsupporterd" or a "Failure" are relative terms. Historic arenas in other games have about the same numbers as our ct.

There are groups of guys who fly the ct only.

Also I made over 6 to 8 posts all stating that ht made the correct choice in modelling the d3.

You must have mis-read my last reply or have me confused with some one else.

Dowding (Work) · « **Reply #23 on:** November 29, 2002, 05:53:21 AM »

Maybe you're right. I was sure it was you. Oh well...

F4UDOA · « **Reply #24 on:** November 29, 2002, 09:32:37 AM »

Maybe I'm missing something here because the Stuka or German Iron really is not my specialty. However the armament in which I am speaking of is the defensive not the offensive variety.

Namely the rear facing 20mill option. Here is a snip from the artical I first posted.

Quote

From the D-4 model onwards the 7.92 mm window guns were replaced by the 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon.

Maybe this is wrong or I am mistaken but I read this as the rearward facing machine gun.

The JU-88 suffers from the same delemma of having two 7.7Mil machine guns sticking out the rear for defense. This does not prevent me from making dead 6 runs on it all day with no fear of damage. At least the 20mil gives you a fighting chance.

The problem I have with the CA is that it is a very small minority of AH players. Maybe this will change with the mission arena but for now that's the way it is.

So in my opinion the CM's should make due with a JU-87D-4 instead of the MA dealing with the D-3.

Also

Val = Grace
Ju-88 should be a newer model with better defensive armament.
ME110G2 = ME410

Maybe HTC plans on adding these A/C at some point and time but IMHO the wrong people in AH are making due with what is available.

And BTW I do want a Stuka in AH. It was to important to leave out. It's the details that annoy me the most.

Tilt · « **Reply #25 on:** November 29, 2002, 11:17:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by F4UDOA
Namely the rear facing 20mill option. Here is a snip from the artical I first posted.

Maybe this is wrong or I am mistaken but I read this as the rearward facing machine gun.

"The D-5 also replaced its wing-mounted 7.92mm machine guns with 20mm cannon, had extended wings to reduce the wing loading and re-introduced the jettisonable undercarriage of the Clara to make belly landings safer. "

No the wing guns were the ones up graded the rear firing guns were the twin 7.92 found in the coffin belly of the Ju 88..... I think these replaced a single 7.92 gun after the B.

...and if I read Staga's post then the D3 can be loaded with two 20mm gondolas per wing! which would give 4 x 20mm + 2 x 7.92mm forward firing plus a 1360 kg bomb!............

I'd like to see more stuff on load out options of the D3.................

Staga · « **Reply #26 on:** November 29, 2002, 12:00:09 PM »

...and, with the underfuselage load limited to 500kg, on the underwing hardpoints blaah blaah blaah, or two Waffenbehälter (weapon container) pods...

Anyway fuselage hardpoint was rated for 1800kg load and hardpoints in wings for 500kg.
3x500kg sounds pretty nice or maybe that 1800kg for deleting the hangars from the base.

Tilt · « **Reply #27 on:** November 29, 2002, 01:24:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Staga
[B
Anyway fuselage hardpoint was rated for 1800kg load and hardpoints in wings for 500kg.
[/B]

seems to me that the total load could not exceed 1600/1800 (depending on source) even though the sum of the individual points could be higher..............

Staga · « **Reply #28 on:** November 29, 2002, 01:59:20 PM »

Well pic says up to 1800kg, pretty clear to me

cajun · « **Reply #29 on:** November 29, 2002, 04:21:28 PM »

We CT'rs and scenario ppl need an early war stuka! I agree with wotan, wont matter much what armament it has in MA, but I have killed a spit or 2 with the vals front guns in MA

Besides, u don't even know if they got another version comin or not, they could very well add 2 versions of it.