Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: B-17 on March 09, 2011, 08:21:56 PM

Title: Ju-52
Post by: B-17 on March 09, 2011, 08:21:56 PM
wishing for an axis cargo transport... :pray: could i hear some thoughts other than "update the ones we have"?
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: Volron on March 09, 2011, 08:22:37 PM
DEFINITE +1. :aok
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: AWwrgwy on March 09, 2011, 08:24:45 PM
1. It's corrugated for safety.
2. Three engines are better than two.
3. It has a bb gun to make noise with.

 :banana:


wrongway
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: B-17 on March 09, 2011, 08:32:53 PM
not only for those reasons, wrongway, but it [the 7e] carries an extra 2,000 pounds or so. than the C-47
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: Volron on March 09, 2011, 08:41:34 PM
That doesn't mean that it will end up carrying more troops, more V-sups or more field sups.  Though...maybe they could have it carry more v-sups?  That's the only difference that would probably be between the C-47 and the Ju-52 in terms of cargo.
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: B-17 on March 09, 2011, 08:47:06 PM
yeah... only room for 18 on the 52, but it is defended, however lightly--1- 5 MGs/20mmMG151
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: AWwrgwy on March 09, 2011, 08:51:52 PM
That doesn't mean that it will end up carrying more troops, more V-sups or more field sups.  Though...maybe they could have it carry more v-sups?  That's the only difference that would probably be between the C-47 and the Ju-52 in terms of cargo.

Supplies and troops are based on what is required not on what the plane or gv could carry.

If you can carry 20 troops it would take 20 troops to take a base instead of ten.


wrongway
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: Volron on March 09, 2011, 08:57:58 PM
Supplies and troops are based on what is required not on what the plane or gv could carry.

If you can carry 20 troops it would take 20 troops to take a base instead of ten.


wrongway

I wasn't saying anything about the number of troops, just the number of v-supplies.  I'm not worried either way.  I DO think the Ju-52 deserves it's place in AH in the future though.
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: B-17 on March 09, 2011, 09:00:22 PM
it played a major role pretty much everywhere in europe. malta, poland, spain, france, north africa, STALINGRAD...
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: Ugly05 on March 09, 2011, 09:10:17 PM
Would be a nice addition +1  :joystick:
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: stealth on March 09, 2011, 09:11:18 PM
+1
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: Ugly05 on March 10, 2011, 07:42:23 AM
The Junkers Ju. 52/3M with the Pontoons ? Ability to take off land from water would be a different twist to game
 (http://www.finn.it/regia/immagini/alleati/ju52_3m.jpg)
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: MachFly on March 10, 2011, 07:57:51 AM
+1
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: VonMessa on March 10, 2011, 08:14:34 AM
Supplies and troops are based on what is required not on what the plane or gv could carry.

If you can carry 20 troops it would take 20 troops to take a base instead of ten.


wrongway

Silence!

I want the ability to carry troops AND beer  :aok

 :rofl
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: MachFly on March 10, 2011, 08:15:36 AM
Silence!

I want the ability to carry troops AND beer  :aok

 :rofl


You might have drunk troops running to the base instead of the town.   :old:
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: VonMessa on March 10, 2011, 08:19:19 AM
You might have drunk troops running to the base instead of the town.   :old:

Adds a new dimension to base capture  :lol
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: Noir on March 10, 2011, 09:30:30 AM
+1 every side using the same transports in events is kinda silly...even if the Ju52 is a dog.
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: R 105 on March 10, 2011, 10:41:45 AM
 I would like to see the JU-52 because it played such a major roll in the European theater of war from the beginning to the end. It was an airliner in Europe well before hostilities started in 1939 and saw service well after the war. It would be a great addition to the AvA for scenarios and it is so ugly that it is beautiful.
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: B-17 on March 10, 2011, 04:30:25 PM
The Junkers Ju. 52/3M with the Pontoons ? Ability to take off land from water would be a different twist to game
 (http://www.finn.it/regia/immagini/alleati/ju52_3m.jpg)

maybe it would work... if we did that, then i would have to start a new thread for the sunderland or the catalina   :joystick:
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: Raphael on March 10, 2011, 04:50:47 PM
it is so ugly that it is beautiful.

+1 :aok
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: AAJagerX on March 10, 2011, 06:06:31 PM
Adds a new dimension to base capture  :lol

I'd like to see em stumble aimlessly while scattering in all directions, then pass out.
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: B-17 on March 10, 2011, 10:16:07 PM
at least theyd be harder to shoot at :aok
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: Debrody on March 11, 2011, 03:19:21 AM
+1 for tante Ju, along with an update on the c-47
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: gyrene81 on March 11, 2011, 05:24:06 AM
been needed for a long time...  :aok
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: B-17 on March 11, 2011, 04:45:18 PM
the being able to look inside the wing structure when you lose an aileron would be cool, because i think it has multiple spars, no? and 3 engines is better than 2.
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: EagleDNY on March 11, 2011, 06:36:01 PM
I'd +1 it with the pontoons and a system to use the ports to do resupply.  Otherwise give me an Me-323.
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: LLogann on March 11, 2011, 06:45:18 PM
Everybody in this thread realizes that a Goonie Bird, IRL, carries a crapload more than 10 right?

Even with the addition of another C aircraft, it won't be changing the 10 thing. 

+1 btw.
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: B-17 on March 11, 2011, 07:39:44 PM
I'd +1 it with the pontoons and a system to use the ports to do resupply.  Otherwise give me an Me-323.

Me 323... that was the massive glider right? the one that kept getting shot down, but could carry 60 troops or something?
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: AWwrgwy on March 11, 2011, 07:55:18 PM
Everybody in this thread realizes that a Goonie Bird, IRL, carries a crapload more than 10 right?

Even with the addition of another C aircraft, it won't be changing the 10 thing. 

+1 btw.

Apparently not.


wrongway
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: Imowface on March 15, 2011, 04:32:28 AM
I am all for adding a Ju-52, but we should also keep the Savoia-Marchetti S.M.82 in mind,  although its max speed was only 204mph, it does have a better defensive armament then the Ju, it was probably the most capable axis transport of the entire war, excluding the 323, which the S.M.82 had a much better reputation then
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: Karnak on March 15, 2011, 05:44:00 AM
been needed for a long time...  :aok
How, exactly, has it been needed?

In the MA all sides have access to all aircraft, so there is no need to cater to Luftwaffe fetishes and, to the best of my knowledge, there has yet to be a scenario that uses even the C-47.
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: gyrene81 on March 15, 2011, 07:02:16 AM
How, exactly, has it been needed?

In the MA all sides have access to all aircraft, so there is no need to cater to Luftwaffe fetishes and, to the best of my knowledge, there has yet to be a scenario that uses even the C-47.
i know karnak, you would be happy if ah was nothing but u.s. and british fetishes...that's ok...we all understand.

considering the c-47 is the only flying troop transport available in ah, i'm not surprised special events don't generally have that particular dynamic involved...looking past ones own nose, imagine special events with a few little things being available...
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: jimson on March 15, 2011, 08:40:04 AM
This has been wished for many times and would help with the immersion aspect. Being an AvA dude I'd really like to see country specific transports.

Seems like it wouldn't require a lot of work, just use the existing C-47 flight model and adjust top speed as necessary, I'd take it without guns even.
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: Chilli on March 15, 2011, 01:26:11 PM
How, exactly, has it been needed?

In the MA all sides have access to all aircraft, so there is no need to cater to Luftwaffe fetishes and, to the best of my knowledge, there has yet to be a scenario that uses even the C-47.

Using that criteria a great number of vehicles would not have been added including the Allies fetish for armor.
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: Karnak on March 15, 2011, 02:33:01 PM
i know karnak, you would be happy if ah was nothing but u.s. and british fetishes...that's ok...we all understand.

considering the c-47 is the only flying troop transport available in ah, i'm not surprised special events don't generally have that particular dynamic involved...looking past ones own nose, imagine special events with a few little things being available...
You must have me confused with somebody else.  I'm the guy who gets accused of being anti-American due to my persistent objections to more American stuff. The only British aircraft I advocate right now is the Wellington....so that the Luftwaffe in early war can have an Allied bomber they can actually catch.

Note that I didn't say the Ju-52 wasn't a valid want.  I said it wasn't needed, and it isn't.  It is perfectly valid to want it though.

Using that criteria a great number of vehicles would not have been added including the Allies fetish for armor.
Allied armor fetish?  You play the same game?  We have five Allied tanks based on two chassis.  We have three German tanks that are three completely separate chassis.  That doesn't seem entirely imbalanced to me.
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: Imowface on March 15, 2011, 02:43:12 PM
(http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/j/Savoia-Marchetti%20SM%2082.jpg)
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: gyrene81 on March 15, 2011, 02:50:42 PM
Note that I didn't say the Ju-52 wasn't a valid want.  I said it wasn't needed, and it isn't.  It is perfectly valid to want it though.
it is needed...just not in the main arenas...actually for the lw arenas there aren't many planes really "needed"...but for special events, which are the only reasons some people keep their subscriptions going, little silly planes like the ju-52 are needed.
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: B-17 on March 15, 2011, 02:51:47 PM
How, exactly, has it been needed?

In the MA all sides have access to all aircraft, so there is no need to cater to Luftwaffe fetishes and, to the best of my knowledge, there has yet to be a scenario that uses even the C-47.

well maybe we dont/didnt need the SBD because the Ju 87 does a good enough job of that [divebombing] on its own? or we didnt need the Spitfire because the Me-109K was just as good a fighter? correct me if im wrong, but this GAME isnt only about the combat and/or evenly matched aspect, it also has the element of look, and exploiting each vehicle's/aircraft's weaknesses and strengths. war wasnt always evenly matched (points to the Pacific Theatre)
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: Chilli on March 15, 2011, 02:55:19 PM
You must have me confused with somebody else.  I'm the guy who gets accused of being anti-American due to my persistent objections to more American stuff. The only British aircraft I advocate right now is the Wellington....so that the Luftwaffe in early war can have an Allied bomber they can actually catch.

Note that I didn't say the Ju-52 wasn't a valid want.  I said it wasn't needed, and it isn't.  It is perfectly valid to want it though.
Allied armor fetish?  You play the same game?  We have five Allied tanks based on two chassis.  We have three German tanks that are three completely separate chassis.  That doesn't seem entirely imbalanced to me.

Now we are talking balance  :D  I was poking at you.  At first you said wanting Ju52s was part of a Luftwaffe fetish, now you are saying that it is valid to want it.  Seems like someone won you over.

I used the armor issue to make a point.  I am assuming that you remember the only tank we had was the Panzer, somewhere in there the M8, then the Tiger, then T34.  Still no American steel, so all Allies had at the time was a fast Russian tank with a slow rate of fire.  Recently, some of the "holes" have been filled with the Shermans. 

So, which is it?  Do we need historical combatants or just role play equipment?  "I am Sherman pschwwnnng.... pschwwnnng...."  "No, your not!. You're a panzer pschwwngg..... pschwwnnng..."  "No I am not, your a panzer.  So how can I be a panzer too?  pschwwnng..............."  (blows smoke from pistol finger)  ...." you're dead"

Ju52 may be just a bump not a hole for some, but for those who run scenarios and certainly the Axis versus Allies, it is an obvious detour.
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: Karnak on March 16, 2011, 12:20:09 AM
it is needed...just not in the main arenas...actually for the lw arenas there aren't many planes really "needed"...but for special events, which are the only reasons some people keep their subscriptions going, little silly planes like the ju-52 are needed.
It is most certainly not needed for special events. Neither is the C-47.  No special event has ever used a C-47 and I see no reason why the Ju52 would change that.
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: Sakai on March 20, 2011, 03:22:01 PM
It is most certainly not needed for special events.

Needed?  No, but you could use it in early Mediterranean events as a bomber since it filled that role also.  It's an effective replacement for the SM 81 Pipistrello, used as a cargo plane and bomber, as well.  This would obviate all German/Italian bombers being simply the ju87 and 88.
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: Imowface on March 20, 2011, 06:30:42 PM
Ju-52 was used as a bomber?
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: B-17 on March 20, 2011, 06:38:11 PM
unless their troops exploded i dont think so... correct me if im wrong
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: Karnak on March 21, 2011, 12:54:27 AM
It was used as a bomber during the Spanish Civil War.  I am unaware of any such use later than 1939 at the latest.
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: Imowface on March 21, 2011, 12:55:02 AM
Thanks for that tid bit of info Karnak
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: Sakai on March 21, 2011, 05:16:37 AM
The biggest thing would be breaking the three engine model taboo.  While there were not a greast number of three engined aircraft, there were some impotant ones and having one might encourage the modeling of the Italian suite of excellent 3 engined medium bombers. 
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: B-17 on March 21, 2011, 04:22:48 PM
yeah, that makes sense... bring on the savoia marchettis!!! :rock
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: LLv34_Snefens on March 21, 2011, 04:40:11 PM
Just add the He-111 and include it's ability to carry paratroopers. win-win.

Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: B-17 on March 21, 2011, 04:48:18 PM
that might work too, but, as sakai said, 3 engines on 1 airframe would be a big leap. and also, i dont know, but im thinking that the He-111 didnt have as great a troop-carrying ability as the Ju-52 :headscratch:
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: Karnak on March 22, 2011, 12:47:56 AM
I would much, much rather see the SM.79-II added as the first three engined aircraft in AH.  It would be vastly more useful.
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: Imowface on March 22, 2011, 12:53:58 AM
I would much, much rather see the SM.79-II added as the first three engined aircraft in AH.  It would be vastly more useful.
+ 36000000
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: 7super61 on April 04, 2011, 08:34:42 PM
+1 :confused:
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: Pigslilspaz on April 05, 2011, 12:22:18 AM
Just add the He-111 and include it's ability to carry paratroopers. win-win.



Short Stirling carried paratroopers too :noid
Title: Re: Ju-52: Why the Stall?
Post by: Dahl on April 05, 2011, 02:08:32 AM
 :bhead :bhead :bhead
Why is it that after all these years, HTC still refuses
to model one of the two greatest transports in WWII?
Dave,Roy-we discussed this matter over the phone,
not to mention the many threads posted over the
past years by many people asking:"when will you deliver?"
Yes,we all know the dry stats...Just give us the option.
Title: Re: Ju-52
Post by: Sakai on July 18, 2022, 03:28:50 PM
Latest use of Ju-52 as a bomber was 1950 by the French in Indochina.