Author Topic: JU 87 stuka why is not been born with ACESHIGH?  (Read 2858 times)

TheWobble

  • Guest
JU 87 stuka why is not been born with ACESHIGH?
« Reply #15 on: January 14, 2001, 09:12:00 AM »
uuggh soya read it again... i never said segregate anything all i said is that it would be nice if there were different channels available for different languages, I dont remember what others on that thread were aiming for but that was my angle, I know its prolly my fault that it came across that way, im used to speaking in public ans such but im not good at iteration things in typed words, however you guys seem to jump to conclusions a bit quick, read the other 900 postis i have here and you will see that
about 95% ot them time I am just trying to add something to a converation or help out just like you guys, the other 5% i spend typing stuff like this.  

thanks sunchaser...

[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 01-14-2001).]

Offline JEK

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8
JU 87 stuka why is not been born with ACESHIGH?
« Reply #16 on: January 14, 2001, 09:27:00 AM »
THX Sunchaser

To me it appeals to to have an answer to the question that I have made
 sure I would want to participate to the argument the JU87 STUKA



------------------
CO.DRAGO
1°Gruppo Caccia ASSO di BASTONI

Offline DrSoya

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 51
JU 87 stuka why is not been born with ACESHIGH?
« Reply #17 on: January 14, 2001, 09:35:00 AM »
I do have a question on the Stuka, but I'm not sure if we should just kill this thread and begin another.

How much was it really used after the Battle of Britain?

Was it still part of important operations later in the War? Was it involved in the Battle of the Bulge (in 1944 I believe?) for example?

DrSoya

Offline Jimdandy

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 46
JU 87 stuka why is not been born with ACESHIGH?
« Reply #18 on: January 14, 2001, 09:37:00 AM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by TheWobble:
wow, I ask to get some help with what A guy is saying and i get told to shut the diddly up..wow nice people on this thread.  

I'm sorry I miss understood you too Wob. It can be hard to get your intention across on here sometimes. Man have you opened a can!  

TheWobble

  • Guest
JU 87 stuka why is not been born with ACESHIGH?
« Reply #19 on: January 14, 2001, 09:41:00 AM »
Yea jim I do that alot it seems, but i never mean too, I REALLY have a problem typing what I am trying to say and I understand when people freak out on me occasionally, i dont hold a grudge, everybody squeakes and gets squeaked at now and then  

Offline Sunchaser

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 179
JU 87 stuka why is not been born with ACESHIGH?
« Reply #20 on: January 14, 2001, 10:07:00 AM »
NP TW.

The Stuka was used with good effect on the Eastern Front right up to the end I believe.

It was an effective weapon early on due to the air superiority enjoyed by the Luftwaffe and was withdrawn from areas it was extremely vulnerable in.

The Stuka, with all her faults, was a mission built machine that did it well.

I hope and expect to see it in AH soon.

------------------
When did they put this thing in here and WTF is it for?

Offline JEK

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8
JU 87 stuka why is not been born with ACESHIGH?
« Reply #21 on: January 14, 2001, 10:11:00 AM »
DrSoya I hope of being understood
After Battaglia di England the JU87 has been used in GREECE and RUSSIA.
For the LUFTWAFFE the JU87 had to be the airplane that it would have made gained the war the GERMANY, and was a plan of Ernst Udet, than a failure was revealed, but it obtained very many turned out in the battles.

 I insert STUKA photo that to attack English convoy in GREECE
 

------------------
CO.DRAGO
1°Gruppo Caccia ASSO di BASTONI

TheWobble

  • Guest
JU 87 stuka why is not been born with ACESHIGH?
« Reply #22 on: January 14, 2001, 10:15:00 AM »
I think that in the AH enviroment we have, having the lack of consistant air supremacy over any area for any amount of time the stuka would hardly fair better than the good....I still would fly it though, especally if it made that high pitched scream as it dove, i love that.  stuka was a very well implemented terror weapon.

Offline Jimdandy

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 46
JU 87 stuka why is not been born with ACESHIGH?
« Reply #23 on: January 14, 2001, 10:24:00 AM »
Oh yeah the siren/dive brake. I understood that the siren was actually installed as a terror device from the beginning. Anyone know? Or was the noise only a coincidental effect of an aerodynamic feature of the plane?

[This message has been edited by Jimdandy (edited 01-14-2001).]

Offline eagl

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6769
JU 87 stuka why is not been born with ACESHIGH?
« Reply #24 on: January 14, 2001, 10:31:00 AM »
JEK,

I'm sure HiTech and the others at HTC have the JU-87 on their list of planes to put in the game, but so far they have decided that other planes are more important to make the game well rounded.

In addition (this is my opinion), right now the arena is balanced out in such a way to make light aircraft dive bombing nearly impossible.  It is so tough to do, it seems as if HTC is trying to discourage it.  Here is my reasoning:

First, it takes a direct hit by a large bomb to kill just about any ground object in the game.  This appears to be how HTC balances out the amazingly good accuracy of the heavy bombers.  Instead of decreasing building hardness, increasing bomb damage radius, and then decreasing bomber accuracy, all objects except the AAA take a direct hit to destroy.  

Second, the AAA lethality and accuracy strongly discourages dive bombing.  To get the accuracy required to actually destroy anything except an AAA emplacement, you have to release your bombs from low altitude in a steep dive.  This is very nearly suicidal, and is still very ineffective.  A JU-87 would be very vulnerable in the AH arena because it isn't fast enough to get back out of the AAA and it still wouldn't be accurate enough to take down most ground objects.

Anecdotal evidence - I did some online testing.  When I dive bomb, I can (with practice) place my bombs within 50 meters of just about any target.  I can generally place bombs aimed at buildings with the bomb crater touching the building itself.  Even touching a hangar with a large bomb isn't good enough to destroy it however.  I've also had bombs hit on the FAR side of a hangar at such an angle that the bomb had to fly THROUGH the hangar roof to get there, yet the hangar survives.

The type of buildings and other ground objects used in the AH terrains should be extremely vulnerable to even smallish bombs.  A 500 lb bomb hitting within about 100 ft of the big hangars ought to wreck it (given the type of hangar shown by the art), yet it takes a direct hit to kill it.  Worse, the vehicles have the same hardness.  I saw a heavy bomber carpet a vehicle field with small bombs, and one bomb went off close enough to an ostwind that the ostwind was halfway inside the crater.  Even a 100 lb bomb should have knocked the darn thing over, yet the ostwind was undamaged and actually drove into the crater then continued firing.

Most ground objects in AH except ammo bunkers and fuel tanks in revetments ought to be blown to pieces by a near miss.  But since the heavy bombers never miss, the hardness has been set so it actually requires a solid direct hit to destroy most targets.

Given the current balance, another dive bomber in the game would be a complete waste.  It would be largely ineffective except in massive groups or when flown by one of the handful of people in the game that have figured out how to get results with them.  Until last year, I did "dive bombing" for a living in RL, won bombing competitions against my instructors when learning how to use non-computing fixed bomb sights, yet I can't figure out how to make it work.  All modesty aside, if it's impossible for me it's probably pretty damn tough for everyone.  There are a few people in AH who can destroy entire fields by themselves in one sortie, but not many are that accurate.

I'm not slamming HTC, they have their reasons for the current hardness/lethality/accuracy balance.  I'm just explaining why a dedicated dive bomber would be wasted effort at this point.  If the target hardness was lowered and the bomb frag radius was increased, I'd say that the JU-87 would be a great addition.  But that would mean that the high alt bomber accuracy would have to be changed, and HTC has not yet done that despite the outcries of a vocal player minority on that subject.

Long answer to a short question, but each added plane has to fit into the arena gameplay, and the JU-87 doesn't fit right now IMHO.


------------------
eagl <squealing Pigs> BYA
Oink Oink To War!!!
Everyone I know, goes away, in the end.

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
JU 87 stuka why is not been born with ACESHIGH?
« Reply #25 on: January 14, 2001, 11:14:00 AM »
one thing....
any success a stuka had during ww2 was based on local air superiority. dive bombing is tough as eagl says but with practice i was able to release my bombs  and pullout at 3-4 k strictly in 190s. Planes with wing mounted bombs i find alot harder to hit my target. Depending how you set up ur exit ( not flying across the field)a stuka even with its limited speed should be able to extend and set up again if there are no cons around. i doudt anyone in main will fly the stuka but it would make for a good scenario aircraft. One thing i found was that when setting up strike I liked to start at atleast 15k with throttle idled this gives me enough time to get verticle and in line on target. most people glide bomb in ma but stuka is really a verticle bomber and if you set up at beginning of dive even vehicle strikes should get easy with practice but again if there are nme cons near ur basically flying dead.
 

Offline JEK

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8
JU 87 stuka why is not been born with ACESHIGH?
« Reply #26 on: January 14, 2001, 11:40:00 AM »
Eagl
 Your ideas have convinced to me, thx. of the aid six state much luminosity.
 But tactically and strategically in AH it would be useful
 even if a lot vulnerable

HI

------------------
CO.DRAGO
1°Gruppo Caccia ASSO di BASTONI

Offline anRky

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13
      • http://www.domogarden.com
JU 87 stuka why is not been born with ACESHIGH?
« Reply #27 on: January 14, 2001, 11:47:00 AM »
Stuka!

Definately near the top of my list of planes I want added to AH.

The day we get the stuka is the day I start learning what all those dots are on the ground, and which ones to kill!

anRky
-Ih8ubb

Sorrow[S=A]

  • Guest
JU 87 stuka why is not been born with ACESHIGH?
« Reply #28 on: January 14, 2001, 05:21:00 PM »
Thats odd eagl, I can get direct hits while dive bombing- it's just important to go in vertical enough. And when in a B-26 I can hit 2-3 targets at once with a 1k bomb. Some spots if I put it right I can get the third 1k to kill a hanger, knock out 2 ack and an ammo bunker at the same time. Awesome on the hit %  

The sirens I believe were added after the plane saw service in poland to increase the pure terror it caused people on the ground. It was also handy for terrifying horses and such that were transporting supplies and artillery.

The service went through the war, by '42 it was only active on the eastern front I believe. It was accepted by the luftwaffe that the 190 would replace it in ground attack by '43. I do think they served right until the end of the war though.

LJK Raubvogel

  • Guest
JU 87 stuka why is not been born with ACESHIGH?
« Reply #29 on: January 14, 2001, 06:40:00 PM »
Ju-87G might be nice to have for attacking ground vehicles.

------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps

 

[This message has been edited by LJK Raubvogel (edited 01-14-2001).]