Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Blunder on February 18, 2013, 06:49:33 PM
-
Hey guy. I havent played for quite some time, but I once said I will definatly come back once the Heinkel He177 is brought to this game. So as I didnt find any up to date plane list..has HTC already put it into the game or are there any plans to do so in the near future?
thanks! <S<
-
has HTC already put it into the game
No.
or are there any plans to do so in the near future?
Nobody knows, but seems to be unlikely.
-
He-177 is 'the dream' for any Luftwaffe player. 109's and 190's might actually start using DROP TANKS doing 'bomber escort.'
The Luftwaffe side has small fighters, medium fighters, dive bombers, medium bombers, but no LARGE BOMBER! and its also a 'dive bomber!'
The He-177 had over 800 made.
Technical difficulties:
Rumors of the He-177 having technical difficulties. Yes some problems at start. Hmm, all planes had difficulties at start. (I'm sure the first porche cars had problems, but look at them today!)
A) the least technical difficulites plane? the BF-109 probably, because they were constantly improved since their first prototype in may 1935.
Hans Joachim Marseille 'Star of Africa' died to a bug or maintenance something... in a brand new BF-109g2, engine problems resulting in smoke in the cockpit. (so even every upgrade gets risk).
B) some rumor about prototype spitfires having their tails just fall off? LOL We dont have that in game! There is a whole thread about this in these boards somewhere, year ago?
C) the He-177 entered service in 1942. America was in the war at this point, meaning Germany was in deep doodoo. Demands were all over the Reich!!! Rushed introduction! One can not blame the plane for what was INDEED a rushed introduction!
A) How about if your plane's engine had an oil leak and your engine cooked within the first five minutes of flight because you didn't check the gauge! And/or smoke filled up cockpit, cant see and dead!
B) How about if YOU were about to land 10 KILLS for achievement, coming in for landing just right, and... and one your tire blows out! Your plane swings to one side and dead. <-- could happen in any plane.
If bugs and maintenance issues are not in the game, then they arent in the game! Periodoso!
He-177 vs He-111 which to add?
All the early luft bombers got chewed up durring the 'Battle for Brittain' but so did any and all bombers during the whole war if they didnt have proper fighter escort. Lancasters resorted to night flights but radar and equiped planes caught up to them too. This said, in the main arena, vs late war fighters, the 111 wouldnt stand a chance, the Ju-88 has about the same stats and performance, hence: the He-111 would be MORE OF THE SAME. For scenarios, the Japanese Ki-67 seems like a fine substitute. The He-177 would be a BIG Luftwaffe bomber, much more survivability in latewar with its size, number of guns, and more bombs. Sinking a CV for full credit might be more possible with He-177, and that trip to enemy strats in a formation of loaded He-177s would be a Luftwaffe pilot's historical dream to be relived in the skys of Aces High!
CV sinkers:
Ju-88: with torpedoes seems worthless vs a CV, the 5inch's kill me before I get anywhere near the firing range that I think I could hit. Its like replaying a film, same thing, same spot, everytime.
Ju-87: during the war, two 1000kg (2,202 lbs) sank a battleship, so the 4,000 lbs bomb should be able to also. USA dive bombers sank CV's.
Point is, if a player can SINGLE HANDEDLY kill a CV in one plane, then why not another. A formation of Bombers is a single player. So the two above should be able to also.
The 177 could do this just fine like any other - b17, lank, etc. During the war, btw, the Luftwaffe bombers sank more ships than the Uboats! 55% to 45% I read something like that somewhere.
size matters:
He-111: 53' length, 74' width
He-177: 72' length, 103' width <-- bigger!
Defensive guns:
He-111: seven 7.92mm, two of which could be substituted with a 20mm and a 13mm.
He-177: one 7.92mm, two 20mm, four 13mm. <--- that 'fire all guns' button would make a mess of any fighter! Might even compete with the B29 on this note.
speed:
He-111: uhh, 273mph?
He-177: 351 at 19,000 feet. <--- much faster!
Business stuff:
He-111: 12,300 lbs total? 2,000 kilograms (4,400 lb) in the main internal bomb bay. Up to 3,600 kilograms (7,900 lb) could be carried externally
He-177: 29,000 lbs total? 6,000 kg (13,227 lb) of ordnance internally/7,200 kg (15,873 lb) externally or up to 3 Fritz X or Henschel Hs 293 PGMs (remote control bombs) <-- earthquake maker!
The remote control bombs could possibly be added to the plane later on, sort of like the nuke on the B29.
Please don't blame the plane for its bad situation. It was unfairly rushed into service, and the Luftwaffe didnt even have enough fuel for its fighters, let alone these monstrocities. Had the war gone differently, these planes would have been pounding all of the Reich's happy wonderful innocent neighbors.
This game is about the machines, not the status of the countries involved - we are Bishops, Knights, and Rooks, so no fuel shortages here!
The He-177 is an awesome machine to add! Four engines, two large props! Could hold its own in the main (late war) arena. It is a unique plane also! Not more of the same!
Hands down, the 177 would be guaranteed fun for Luftwaffe pilots! A true novelty for them of how things could have been!
And the best challenge for the allied figthers to shoot down!
Allied pilots would get more excited spotting a He-177 formation than when they see a slow and low 190a8!!! <-- who would want to deny an allied player of the most drooling target ever spotted in the skys of Aces High?!?!?!
-
H model is here... soon :x :x
-
H model is here... soon :x :x
Not of the 111. :noid
-
The He-177 would be the only survivable non-perk axis bomber...
-
Just give them the condor we ally pilots will drool.
-
The He-177 would be the only survivable non-perk axis bomber...
The existence of the H8K2 'Emily' suggests otherwise.
Also, should the He177 be modeled to the fantasies of the Luftwaffe fans here (330mph, 13,000lb bomb load, defended by 20mm cannons) it most certainly would need to be perked.
-
It wasn't defended by 20mm cannons?
-
It wasn't defended by 20mm cannons?
Some. My point was that on paper it is clearly a perk bomber. The fact that in reality it was one of the most disastrous weapons programs ever and never lived up to its goals is the problem. In AH it would be a wonder-bomber, combining the B-17G and Lancaster into one platform that would, should it not be perked, dominate the bomber aspect of the game.
-
You should be careful throwing around words like "fantasies" and "disastrous". What was so "disastrous" about the He 177A-3 onwards? The A-5, produced from December 1943, was a superb aircraft.
-
That didn't stop the problems with the plane. It resolved the "bursts into flames when you push throttle up" but there were many other problems and engines still failed as did other systems onboard the plane.
-
The He 177 suffered from maintenance issues late in the war. That's about it. The He 177 was a very advanced aircraft, in many ways similar to the B-29. While the USAAF did manage to maintain the B-29 with some effort, the Luftwaffe simply did not have the proper facilities and logistical support to maintain the He 177 in the field. These issues would not affect a future AH version of the He 177 since maintenance issues are not modeled.
-
*edit: 1,169 built, total? :rolleyes:
(Gsholz, during late war, anywhere in the Reich, even public toilets needed maitenance; for example, in most cases, the whole city, with the building and the toilet may have only been a pile of rocks, and the janitors / plumbers probably dead! You name one thing inside of their territory that didnt lack maintenance! Nevermind! :headscratch:)
and check out the 75mm anti tank cannon option! 1/72nd Revell Model Kit.
http://www.swannysmodels.com/He177.html <---- bomb tanks or cannon them, HO fighters or kill them with other guns, Sniper enemy bombers from out of their defensive fire range!
In this video it shows FOUR TORPEDEOS! two at bomb-bay area, two more out under each wing, even I might be able to hit a CV with a formation of these things? Only bomber in game that could cary four?
3x bomber formation = 12xtorpedo salvo! LOL TAKE OUT THE WHOLE FLEET! HAHAHA
This plane could win the war all by itself!
Hmm, that CV 5-inch is probably still too tuff.
Also, this shows how the wheels tuck in to the wings. Neato.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKuXu7wH5FE
Zoomable pictures of a 1/48 scale model of it, could base the whole computer design graphics of the plane from measuring this kit?
http://www.eduard.com/store/Eduard/Photo-etched-parts/Zoom-set/Aircraft/1-48/He-177-Greif-interior-1-48.html
Put this on the front page of the website...
Image is from Microsoft Flightsim 2004, bad graphics, either way that game is flying only, every Luftwaffe player in the game would be crying with joy! 'Luftwhinners?' change to happy 'Luftcriers!' :*)**
http://www.flight-simulator-world.org/images/flight-simulator/He177.JPG
uhh, allywhiners? HAHA
Oh, and thank you for the He-111. I take back what I said in early post, I might even wind up with a bomber rank! Very happy luftwaffe pilot here! He-177 would tip the scale entirely though! :salute
-
Some. My point was that on paper it is clearly a perk bomber. The fact that in reality it was one of the most disastrous weapons programs ever and never lived up to its goals is the problem. In AH it would be a wonder-bomber, combining the B-17G and Lancaster into one platform that would, should it not be perked, dominate the bomber aspect of the game.
That is the thing. She would clearly be perked. No way in hell would they not perk her. How perked it would be is the question though. As for the engines...
Starting with the He 177 A-3/R2, a modified engine nacelle with a new "power system", the Daimler-Benz DB 610, each of which consisted of a pair of Daimler-Benz DB 605s set up to work as one as the DB 606 had been, was used to eliminate the tendency for engine fires.[23] With the introduction of the DB 610 came several improvements including the relocation of the engine oil tank, the lengthening of the engine mountings by 20 cm (8 in), the complete redesign of the exhaust system which also facilitated the installation of exhaust dampers for night missions, and the setting of a power limitation on the engines which resulted in greater reliability. These modifications, supposedly numbering 56 of both major and minor varieties, were successful as far as eliminating engine fires were concerned, but other minor problems with the transfer gearbox between the two component engines of each "power system" and their shared propeller remained.
I know it's from wiki, so doesn't hold much salt. Governing the engines could be something that is hard coded. Or they could leave it be, to where you can flame yourself out of them. Though you'll probably start to see 177 pilots ask why the 29 won't flame out. So going with the governing code my be a better option.
This one is a doozy regardless. However, even I would have to fully disagree with it being a Non-Perked plane. Definitely perk her. :aok I'll likely fly her as much, if only slightly more than the B-29. Reason I say that is that she's likely to get off the ground a bit easier with 100% fuel vs the B-29. :)
-
350 mph at 20k with a 13,000 lbs internal bomb load might need perking, but whether it would need perking or not is rather irrelevant. After all it's something HTC balances by usage numbers, not performance.
-
Other Luftwaffe bombers that would be useable in the LWA:
Ju 188E
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1989-039-18A%2C_Flugzeug_Junkers_Ju_188.jpg)
310 mph. 6,600 lbs bomb load. One 20mm cannon, three 13mm MGs.
Ju 290A-5
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Bundesarchiv_Bild_141-2472%2C_Flugzeug_Junkers_Ju_290_A-7.jpg)
273 mph. 6,600 lbs bomb load. Possibly the most heavily armed bomber of the war with four 20mm cannons and two 13mm MGs.
Do 217M
(http://www.luftarchiv.de/flugzeuge/dornier/do217m1.jpg)
347 mph. 6,600 lbs bomb load. Two 13mm MGs, four 7.92mm MGs.
-
350 mph at 20k with a 13,000 lbs internal bomb load might need perking, but whether it would need perking or not is rather irrelevant. After all it's something HTC balances by usage numbers, not performance.
Unless I am reading this wrong, fully loaded the He-177 does less than that:
(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/151797d1289907083-b-17-vs-he-177-vs-lancaster-p1100048.jpg)
Clean? Maybe, but what good is that for a bomber? It should be doing around 460Kmh fully loaded on military, hardly record breaking.
-
The existence of the H8K2 'Emily' suggests otherwise.
Also, should the He177 be modeled to the fantasies of the Luftwaffe fans here (330mph, 13,000lb bomb load, defended by 20mm cannons) it most certainly would need to be perked.
Ok, and that one, somehow I always fail to consider that hydro a bomber.
We already discussed the 20mm angles for the He-177 and how awful they were, I dont think they are such an issue:
(http://i376.photobucket.com/albums/oo208/jag888/Gunangles.jpg)
The blue lines belong to the version with 2x20mm guns.
-
I know it's from wiki, so doesn't hold much salt. Governing the engines could be something that is hard coded. Or they could leave it be, to where you can flame yourself out of them. Though you'll probably start to see 177 pilots ask why the 29 won't flame out. So going with the governing code my be a better option.
This one is a doozy regardless. However, even I would have to fully disagree with it being a Non-Perked plane. Definitely perk her. :aok I'll likely fly her as much, if only slightly more than the B-29. Reason I say that is that she's likely to get off the ground a bit easier with 100% fuel vs the B-29. :)
Just limit WEP duration and have it accelerate slowly in order to mimic the careful management its finicky engines required.
-
Unless I am reading this wrong, fully loaded the He-177 does less than that:
(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/151797d1289907083-b-17-vs-he-177-vs-lancaster-p1100048.jpg)
Clean? Maybe, but what good is that for a bomber? It should be doing around 460Kmh fully loaded on military, hardly record breaking.
I've found that reaching the target is usually not a problem. Getting away with it after dropping the bombs however is. In early 1944 during the "Baby Blitz" the He 177 was bombing London in full daylight. Usually in a 400+ mph shallow dive across the channel. During the "Baby Blitz" it was by far the most survivable Luftwaffe bomber with a loss rate of less than 10%.
-
How "finicky" could the engines have been, and how difficult could the He 177 have been to fly, when a British pilot and a flight engineer could successfully fly a captured Greif from France to England with no training or prior experience with the aircraft? They didn't even have much time to prepare; they were just dropped with a commando team and stole the aircraft at a German airfield.
-
A dive bomber that could not dive.
-
It was a level bomber. The dive attack design requirement was rescinded in 1942.
-
How "finicky" could the engines have been, and how difficult could the He 177 have been to fly, when a British pilot and a flight engineer could successfully fly a captured Greif from France to England with no training or prior experience with the aircraft? They didn't even have much time to prepare; they were just dropped with a commando team and stole the aircraft at a German airfield.
By then the aircraft faults were well known with fixes and procedures in place that made he aircraft reliable and, IIRC, that and other Greifs were captured by the French and its French mechanics were able to provide the necessary information to the "raiders" (a fact easily verifiable since the RAF painted over the French insignia the aircraft already sported) but, it was still inadvisable to over-stress the engines since any fault could lead to losing 50% of the aircraft's power and the Greif could not fly on 1 engine at weights over 22t IIRC.
Regarding the inclined flights back... well, every KG bomber (Ju-88, Do-217) with the exception of the He-111 (cannot recall if used during Steinbock) could do pretty much that (although at a slower speed) while the Greifs were a minimal part of the force which undoubtedly helped reduced its losses.
-
First I've heard of a daylight baby blitz mission. Not stirring the pot, just the first I've heard.
-
In early 1944 during the "Baby Blitz" the He 177 was bombing London in full daylight.
Unternehmen Steinbock "Baby Blitz" and the He 177 sorties were a night bombing campaign.
-
The He-177 would be the only survivable non-perk axis bomber...
Do 117, Ju 188.
-
Unternehmen Steinbock "Baby Blitz" and the He 177 sorties were a night bombing campaign.
You are of course absolutely right. My mistake.
-
How "finicky" could the engines have been, and how difficult could the He 177 have been to fly, when a British pilot and a flight engineer could successfully fly a captured Greif from France to England with no training or prior experience with the aircraft? They didn't even have much time to prepare; they were just dropped with a commando team and stole the aircraft at a German airfield.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/img142_zpsfa224736.jpg)
Eric Browns book.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/img143_zps9945ec93.jpg)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/120165663/1967-Aero-Series-No-13-Heinkel-177-Greif
-
What is your point Lyric? As your article says, Blagnac "the pirate", without any experience or training on the type, flew the stolen He 177A-5 from France to Farnborough, England without any problems. Or as the article states "without any further incident". That Eric Brown, who later flew it, was "unimpressed" and worried about Allied intelligence reports saying the 177 had problems is rather uninteresting. All the instability problems had been corrected by the A-3 model in 1942.
-
A most unusual combat report:
20 February 1944
A B-17 flown by Lt. Guy Reed and specially-equipped for recon and weather reporting took off to determine the weather conditions over Germany and the North Sea. While enroute, Lt. Reed picked up a ghost radio signal and decided to investigate. A ghost signal had been causing havoc among the bomber groups and misdirecting many bombers away from airfields until their fuel was exhausted and they ditched their bombers. Dropping through cloud cover, Reed's B-17 found the source of the radio signal - a He 177 recon plane. Coming up alongside the big bomber, the B-17 started firing at the Heinkel, beginning a battle across the North Sea as the two lumbering giants fired at each other. Lt. Reed brought the B-17 around the Heinkel and the crew fired on the German bomber at almost point-blank range. The Heinkel dove then appeared to stall alongside the Fortress. As the American bomber came alongside, the German gunners opened up on the B-17, killing the right waist gunner, knocking the cover off the top turret and jamming the rudder. A .50 cal shell from the B-17 nearly killed the German pilot and he decided to break off the battle. As he banked away, a volley of gunfire from the Fortress damaged one of his engines and the He 177 tumbled out of the sky out of control. Nobody survived the crash. Lt. Reed was able to bring his damaged plane back to Scotland for a crash landing.
-
Another account of the B-17 vs. He 177 story:
Duel between a B-17 and He-177:
Feb. 20, 1944, a weather recon B-17 flying out of Scotland encountered an
He-177 that was orbiting over the North Sea transmitting a false homing
radio beam to lure American planes flying the Atlantic off course so that
they would run out of fuel far out at sea. When his radio operator picked
up the signal, the B-17 pilot, Guy Reed, assumed it was being broadcast
from a submarine close by and decided to follow the beam and send a
location report. Visibility was about a quarter mile when the crew
spotted not a sub but a big He-177. Reed decided to try to shoot the
He-177 down and a maneuver fight began. At one point the B-17 actually
collided with the He-177, smacking the belly of the German with its tail
fin. The two bombers traded gunfire for some minutes. At one point Reed
was able to position his plane behind and below the German and his gunners
ripped it with heavy fire. The He pilot threw his plane into a dive. The
B-17 followed, then, at low altitude the He-177 deployed its dive brakes
and dropped its gear, slowing dramatically as it pulled up. The B-17
shot past it and it was the turn of the He-177 gunners to rake the B-17
with fire. The top turret plexigas was shattered. The right waist gunner
was killed. At that point, the two planes, flying at about 3,000 feet
flew alongside each other blazing away like two battleships trading
broadsides. The He-177 pilot decided to break away to the right. As he
did so, the ball turret gunner on the B-17 was able to pour gunfire into
the right engine nacelle (housing two engines), apparently knocking them
out. The He pilot lost control and the plane went into a spin and crashed
into the sea. No one got out. Reed was able to nurse his plane home with
some judicious throttle jockeying---the collision had damaged the rudder
so that the plane wanted to turn to the left and would not flying straight
and level. This story is recounted in "Big Week" by Glen Infield.
-
Do 117, Ju 188.
Both of those would have to carry their ordnance externally seriously affecting their speed and survivability, and carry a lot less.
-
Both of those would have to carry their ordnance externally seriously affecting their speed and survivability, and carry a lot less.
Both COULD carry ordnance externally. Didn't have to, but could.
And the Ju-188 could still make better than 300mph unless it has higher drag penalties than our current plane set.
-
Both COULD carry ordnance externally. Didn't have to, but could.
And the Ju-188 could still make better than 300mph unless it has higher drag penalties than our current plane set.
Yes, but if you are going to use only its meager internal capacity you are better off flying a jabo.
-
The He177 also carried most of its heavy loads externally so far as the diagrams I have seen indicate.
-
Yes, but if you are going to use only its meager internal capacity you are better off flying a jabo.
Highly arguable. And you still don't get that the 188 very well might be making more than 300mph with external ordnance.
-
(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/weapons-systems-tech/45688d1299773437t-he-177-bomb-bay-load-out-he-177.jpg)
Heaviest internal load seems to be the 6x PC1000 armor piercing bomb. Each bomb weighing in at 2,176 lbs for a total of 13,056 lbs.
Actually, the 4x SC1700 clocks in at almost 15,000 lbs...
-
Ever heard of a Luft bomber squad???
Stuka flights are rare, fun though, but the end result is the same everytime, we get shot down defeated over enemy base! Ju-87s, Ju-88s, He-111s same thing! They get shot down disrespectfully by late war fighters. Why would someone repeatedly do a 'defeated' thing? Defeated in a row is DISCOURAGEMENT! The normal result is... go do something else? BOOO!
Give us the the chance to SUCCEED with 'bomber missions' and 'bomber escort escort! Give us some late war offense! Give us our TEETH! Hence: level bomber with some bombs, and defensive guns!
Mr Hitech! Mr Pyro! Open this gate! My Hitech! Mr Pyro! Tear down this wall! (between luft and their heavy bomber, success! fun! rinse/repeat!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfZgR5KOIXs <--- Ronald Reagen speech
ANY LUFT PLAYERS, please post! If you ever got called a Luftwhinner, Luftwobble, Luftwaffle! POST
Say something like... I'll start...
Respectfully, Mr Hitech, Mr Pyro, please give us jagdgeschwader guys some Bombergeschwader strategic TEETH, please give us the 177! :salute
The plane existed, it was mass produced, it saw combat, info is available. It meets all the games requirements!
(Any other fix-it kits were probably sitting in the fields next to the 177s, waiting to be installed, while the crews were repairing the fighters instead, and gassing up the fighters instead! it flew bugless, Ohhkay?)
Google He-177 Greif, endless info. If not enough, goto wikipedia.DE, 177, and google-translate the whole page.. Please, just not the Eric Brown version all we ask LOL. Sources giving conflicting data? what else is new? heh
BLUEPRINTS/DIAGRAMS: (needs google-translate)
http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/Flugzeuge/Bomber/He%20177/cockpit/He%20177%20cockpit.html <--- half of the planes AH file already done?
(if want to see the whole Reagen speech, 26minutes heh)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MDFX-dNtsM&playnext=1&list=PLjq6qJSdsJ68Fk0blEsEW7UMFWqZSRIMa&feature=results_video
hmm waffles, butter and syrup too... gota go!
-
Franz Von Werra,
The Greif was a terrible warplane. Ask for one of the good German bombers, the Do217E or Ju188A. Both would be quite serviceable in the LWA.
Your complaint about the lack of a good German bomber was likely echoed by the WWII Luftwaffe, and is echoed by Japanese, Italian and Russian aircraft fans here. Look at the bomber choices the Russian and Italian players have.
I note that you left out the fact that the most survivable bomber in the game is also German, the Ar234B.
-
The Greif would be awesome in AH, since none of its problems would be modeled.
-
This is the 177 thread, not the japan italy or russian bomber thread.
Guy who started this thread said 'he would come back to game'... accounts!
More accouts? (my 2cents...)
Mr Hitech, Mr Pyro: I goto museums with ww2 planes from time to time (airshows too)... lots and lots of ww2 plane buff people there. Most have never heard of AH? I see boards with many pamphlets for 'dinner at 4000ft plane rides' and 'pizza place' and 'hotel place' and all this stuff, plenty enough room for an AH pamphlet on it? Why not send them a stack of pamphlets for AH, say 30 pamphlets? (or a Giant poster)Ask them to request more when run out? Then check with them. OR A BIG POSTER of AH with screeny.
Put game screeny at top of a He-177 with a P-51 chasing it? (again just my 2cents)
I bet some of those people climbing all over the p38 and f-14, etc would like a pamphlet!
If they only knew?
Airshows too, why no booth with giant poster of AH? Im sure Bruv would sign autographs and pass out pamphlets at every airshow England has every year! Give him a neat system so they can watch him pwnt live in game on a supersize screen? If not Bruv, im sure Midway would do it LOL
He-177 explains stuff to a P-61 Black Widow!
http://falkeeins.blogspot.com/2011/03/p-61-black-widow-versus-he-177-griffon.html
-
The Greif would be awesome in AH, since none of its problems would be modeled.
Yes, this is why the idea of adding it is so appalling. It would be a gross misrepresentation of history and a travesty to have the B-17G, B-24J and Lancaster overshadowed by a piece of crap Heinkel 177.
-
Hell, the B-29 would be rivaled by the He-177.
Really should be one of the last things added.
-
The He177 also carried most of its heavy loads externally so far as the diagrams I have seen indicate.
Have you ever actually read anything about the He-177?
How can you possibly say something so blatantly wrong when the load schematics for the Greif manuals have been posted in this forum before?
The only external loads were the guided munitions and the SC2500, all other bombs could and were carried internally, IF necessary the Grief could ALSO carry external stores to complement the internal load, for example when carrying 10xSC500 (4 external) 6xSC1000 (2 external), but the aircraft could easily carry its full capacity internally if armed with 4xSC1700.
-
Highly arguable. And you still don't get that the 188 very well might be making more than 300mph with external ordnance.
Might?
-
Yes, this is why the idea of adding it is so appalling. It would be a gross misrepresentation of history and a travesty to have the B-17G, B-24J and Lancaster overshadowed by a piece of crap Heinkel 177.
Its funny to see how people cling to their prejudices in face of evidence...
-
Might?
yes, depends on how if HTC decides the drag would be greater than usual for some reason. If not, it will be around 300mph with some external stuff strapped on.
-
The Greif would be awesome in AH, since none of its problems would be modeled.
Lets see, form Griehl:
"One positive aspect of the operations was that the operational safety and reliability of the He I77A-3 had been improved, doing away with the need for the usual six- and 12fi-hour control checks. The regular 25-, 50- and 75-hour inspections were now completely sufficient, with special attention being paid to servicing of the coupled powerplants after 50 flying hours.
According to the technicians, the He 177 service-ability rate of II/ KG 40 was frequently in the order of 80 per cent; a great improvement over the 30 per cent or so recorded during the Gruppe's training phase, when flying operations were noticeably affected by moisture in the air which led to frequent accidental earthing of onboard electrical equipment. In contrast to the situation with I/KG 40, only one aircraft assigned to II /KG 40 was lost due to powerplant failure. During operations against Great Britain there had been numerous power-plant problems, caused mainly by the undertrained aircrews overstraining the engines. On the positive side, the Bordeaux-Merignac-based Grippe had carried out the first He 177 long-range flight (lasting 12fi hours) and proposed to increase the aircraft's range still further by using 900-hr (198 Imp gal) underwing auxiliary fuel tanks. Despite this overload, but obviously helped by the even stressing of both powerplants during the long-range flights, it had proved possible to operate engines for up to 115 flying hours without any problems."
Here is the first hint for many of the problems. More:
"The Technical School of Luftflotte 2 responsible for training ground personnel at Fassberg had two He 177s for instructional purposes, these being the second A-0 built by Arado and an A-1. In June 1943, IV/ KG 40 also had only two He 177 training aircraft, both A-0s, to instruct its crews on this new long-range bomber. The number was increased during the second half of 1943 with the arrival of 12 Kekf-equipped and several other He 177s; but due to the aforementioned grounding of all He 177s between February and May, training could not restart until October. A good seven months had been lost.
Early in 1944, the training unit was transferred to Lechfeld. A more serious problem was the lack of operationally experienced aircrews for instructional purposes. Due to the high loss rate II/KG 40 could not transfer any experienced crews to IV/KG 40 until March 1944, when two crews were made available for this vital task. As a result of this personnel shortage, 24 aircrews had to be handed over to I and II / KCl 40 after only 15 hours of instruction on the He 177. Not only that; none of the new crews could complete their 'special weapon' training while at IV/KG 40 for lack of a proper bombing range. On 14 April 1944 IV/KG 40 had a total of 35 He 177A-0 / -1 /-3s, of which only 13 were serviceable. There were six instructors to train the young crews on the Fw 200, and 10 others for the He 177 — a total of just 16 instructors for no less than 80 student crews! Matters were made worse by the low serviceability of the He 177s used for training purposes due to the lack of replacement power-plants, and the loss of new-build He 177s as a result of enemy air raids."
Now from Price:
"In many cases, the crews involved were relatively young and inexperienced. The largest number of returnees came From the KG 100 combat group, I/KG 100: no less than 14 of its crews abandoned their mission and returned home early. More than anything else, most of the pilots living He 177s initially had no idea about the bomber's prescribed engine revs and highest permissible climbing speeds. The inevitable resulting powerplant overstressing led to no less than seven crashes and engine fires. Other crews undercut the minimum permissible speed, stalled and crashed. Prior to that, problems had arisen due to the sudden move to a new base at short notice, which had left too little time for comprehensive servicing of the A-3s assigned."
And:
"During these operations, von Riesen's crews had little trouble from overheating engines. By now the various modifications had greatly reduced the possibility of this happening. Furthermore the root cause of so many of the fires –over-rough use of the throttles and holding high power settings for too long—was now well known: the KG I pilots had been advised of the danger and avoided it. When engine fires did occur, it was usually the result of engine mishandling by inexperienced pilots."
The aircraft was a complicated machine, the engines were not mature enough and had to be handled with care, but this is a far cry form the disaster some people wish to believe it was. Once most defects were fixed in the A5 and ground and flight crews familiarized with the aircraft it did attain 80 and even 90% serviceability rates.
At best the aircraft would need to be modeled with reduced WEP and gradual acceleration in order to simulate engine management established as operational procedure for the aircraft.
-
Its funny to see how people cling to their prejudices in face of evidence...
You mean the historical evidence of fleets of B-17s, B-24s, Lancasters, Halifaxes, and even B-29s as compared to the trickle of unreliable He177s? You mean that evidence that one of us is ignoring?
You guys would have the Allied heavies, historically successful, be largely supplanted by a historical footnote of a failed weapons program. It is absurd.
jag88,
Cherry picking data does not strengthen your case when your cherry picked example yields the unimpressive serviceability number of 80%.
-
You mean the historical evidence of fleets of B-17s, B-24s, Lancasters, Halifaxes, and even B-29s as compared to the trickle of unreliable He177s? You mean that evidence that one of us is ignoring?
You guys would have the Allied heavies, historically successful, be largely supplanted by a historical footnote of a failed weapons program. It is absurd.
jag88,
Cherry picking data does not strengthen your case when your cherry picked example yields the unimpressive serviceability number of 80%.
I am not cherrypicking, I am quoting the info collected by Griehl in that regard, I can post the quote for 90% as well, but at this point, why bother?
I am sorry that data and facts do not meet your prejudiced expectations.
-
Its funny to see how people cling to their prejudices in face of evidence...
Indeed...
-
Lets see, form Griehl:
"One positive aspect of the operations was that the operational safety and reliability of the He I77A-3 had been improved, doing away with the need for the usual six- and 12fi-hour control checks. The regular 25-, 50- and 75-hour inspections were now completely sufficient, with special attention being paid to servicing of the coupled powerplants after 50 flying hours.
According to the technicians, the He 177 service-ability rate of II/ KG 40 was frequently in the order of 80 per cent; a great improvement over the 30 per cent or so recorded during the Gruppe's training phase, when flying operations were noticeably affected by moisture in the air which led to frequent accidental earthing of onboard electrical equipment. In contrast to the situation with I/KG 40, only one aircraft assigned to II /KG 40 was lost due to powerplant failure. During operations against Great Britain there had been numerous power-plant problems, caused mainly by the undertrained aircrews overstraining the engines. On the positive side, the Bordeaux-Merignac-based Grippe had carried out the first He 177 long-range flight (lasting 12fi hours) and proposed to increase the aircraft's range still further by using 900-hr (198 Imp gal) underwing auxiliary fuel tanks. Despite this overload, but obviously helped by the even stressing of both powerplants during the long-range flights, it had proved possible to operate engines for up to 115 flying hours without any problems."
Here is the first hint for many of the problems. More:
"The Technical School of Luftflotte 2 responsible for training ground personnel at Fassberg had two He 177s for instructional purposes, these being the second A-0 built by Arado and an A-1. In June 1943, IV/ KG 40 also had only two He 177 training aircraft, both A-0s, to instruct its crews on this new long-range bomber. The number was increased during the second half of 1943 with the arrival of 12 Kekf-equipped and several other He 177s; but due to the aforementioned grounding of all He 177s between February and May, training could not restart until October. A good seven months had been lost.
Early in 1944, the training unit was transferred to Lechfeld. A more serious problem was the lack of operationally experienced aircrews for instructional purposes. Due to the high loss rate II/KG 40 could not transfer any experienced crews to IV/KG 40 until March 1944, when two crews were made available for this vital task. As a result of this personnel shortage, 24 aircrews had to be handed over to I and II / KCl 40 after only 15 hours of instruction on the He 177. Not only that; none of the new crews could complete their 'special weapon' training while at IV/KG 40 for lack of a proper bombing range. On 14 April 1944 IV/KG 40 had a total of 35 He 177A-0 / -1 /-3s, of which only 13 were serviceable. There were six instructors to train the young crews on the Fw 200, and 10 others for the He 177 — a total of just 16 instructors for no less than 80 student crews! Matters were made worse by the low serviceability of the He 177s used for training purposes due to the lack of replacement power-plants, and the loss of new-build He 177s as a result of enemy air raids."
Now from Price:
"In many cases, the crews involved were relatively young and inexperienced. The largest number of returnees came From the KG 100 combat group, I/KG 100: no less than 14 of its crews abandoned their mission and returned home early. More than anything else, most of the pilots living He 177s initially had no idea about the bomber's prescribed engine revs and highest permissible climbing speeds. The inevitable resulting powerplant overstressing led to no less than seven crashes and engine fires. Other crews undercut the minimum permissible speed, stalled and crashed. Prior to that, problems had arisen due to the sudden move to a new base at short notice, which had left too little time for comprehensive servicing of the A-3s assigned."
And:
"During these operations, von Riesen's crews had little trouble from overheating engines. By now the various modifications had greatly reduced the possibility of this happening. Furthermore the root cause of so many of the fires –over-rough use of the throttles and holding high power settings for too long—was now well known: the KG I pilots had been advised of the danger and avoided it. When engine fires did occur, it was usually the result of engine mishandling by inexperienced pilots."
The aircraft was a complicated machine, the engines were not mature enough and had to be handled with care, but this is a far cry form the disaster some people wish to believe it was. Once most defects were fixed in the A5 and ground and flight crews familiarized with the aircraft it did attain 80 and even 90% serviceability rates.
At best the aircraft would need to be modeled with reduced WEP and gradual acceleration in order to simulate engine management established as operational procedure for the aircraft.
I'm not arguing with you... :)
-
yes, depends on how if HTC decides the drag would be greater than usual for some reason. If not, it will be around 300mph with some external stuff strapped on.
The 4xSC500 strapped to the Ju-88 do have an impact on its speed in game, the same would happen to the Ju-188.
-
I will add that I do not advocate the Ju188A-1 in order for the German fans to have a less effective bomber. I advocate for the Ju188A-1 because it would go straight to the top of my list of non-perk bombers to use.
I want the Ju188A-1 to be added to AH so that I can use it. The fact that it would fill the hole in the German bomber set is just a bonus.
-
You mean the historical evidence of fleets of B-17s, B-24s, Lancasters, Halifaxes, and even B-29s as compared to the trickle of unreliable He177s? You mean that evidence that one of us is ignoring?
You guys would have the Allied heavies, historically successful, be largely supplanted by a historical footnote of a failed weapons program. It is absurd.
How will anything be "supplanted" by the Greif? We all agree that the He 177 probably would need a small perk like the B-29. More He 177s were produced than Spit14 or Spit16, to say nothing of the Ta 152 and other exotic aircraft already included in the game... In any case the arenas are not historical arenas. You are being absurd.
-
Mr Karnack!
Stop hating!
Our spit16 isnt a "GROSS MISREPRESENTATION?" wwiiaircraftperformance.com doesn't even list the spit16 lol.
Every new kid in the game comes in, ups a HTC spitfire XVI, and walks away thinking 'spits were best?'
HE-177 fires:
Do you know for a fact what was actually causing fires, what was actually done to fix it, what was done next to fix it even better, and at which point were they fixed? By the time it was fixed, the luftwaffe needed fighters more than bombers. These websites dont say exactly because they dont know. Nobody was logging all this information onto flashdrives back then, and the designers and mechanincs have all have long since passed away. Youtube shows them flying, FILM! THERE IS FILM. THEY FLY
So your biased statements are only that... biased statements.
Cause and repairs:
The idea, I think, was to streamline the plane to twin-engine air resistance, while having four-engine performance. Probably some fuel lines near the hot engines, hot exhaust lines, etc. They just separate the stuff a little more each time? As I understand something about the both engines and the axel in there getting vibration? Surely they adressed this, probably put extra gears or some type of dampeners in there, something, YOUTUBE, THEY FLY.
Early Jet Airlines were falling out of the sky!
First jet passenger planes had waving wings and waving engines, combining in harmony, maginfying each other to wave more, so the engine would tear off... kk. THEY FIXED.
"nothing can be fixed! ~ karnack"
Do-217 and Ju-188 were both midsized MORE OF THE SAME
Lets see, 410 performance at best? Fly backwards after a stall? Easy pickins? No Bombergeschwader SQUAD with either of these two, only more of the same.
Also, the Do-217 and Ju-188 had higher production numbers, because they were SMALLER. Germany did NOT have the economy of the USA for stamping to stamp out HE-177's per minute and absorb the losses. Don't blame the plane for the conditions.
I would say perk the He-177 just like the 262 and Ar234 and the 163 comet.
Give the Bombgeschwader some teeth please!
-
Some defensive teeth that is, that doesnt have to get mowed down like stukas in the main. Or run all over like the ar234.
Formation of multigun defense 'fortress style' plane. It is a gap.
-
How will anything be "supplanted" by the Greif? We all agree that the He 177 probably would need a small perk like the B-29. More He 177s were produced than Spit14 or Spit16, to say nothing of the Ta 152 and other exotic aircraft already included in the game... In any case the arenas are not historical arenas. You are being absurd.
You don't know what a Spitfire Mk XVI is or you wouldn't claim that.
As to the He177, it would be an absurd travesty to model such a massive failure as being so good that it needs to be perked. And while that might control it in the MA, it does little for AVA settings where the pro-German bias (see Spitfire Mk IX persistently being used in settings where the Spitfire Mk VIII or Spitfire Mk XVI are appropriate and the Mk IX is completely inappropriate) will see the Allied bomber settings dominated by fantasy Luftwaffe heavy bombers flying against the the UK or USSR.
Our spit16 isnt a "GROSS MISREPRESENTATION?" wwiiaircraftperformance.com doesn't even list the spit16 lol.
Every new kid in the game comes in, ups a HTC spitfire XVI, and walks away thinking 'spits were best?'
Are you delusional or uneducated? The Spitfire Mk XVI was a Spitfire LF.Mk IXe powered by a Packard-Merlin 266 in place of the Spitfire LF.Mk IXe's Merlin 66. They came off the lines side by side with the mark number only determined when the engine was mounted and the separate mark numbers only needed because the Rolls Royce Merlin 66 used metric tools and the Packard-Merlin 266 used imperial tools. As it happens the "Spitfire Mk XVI" in AH is actually a "Spitfire LF.Mk IXe" as can be seen by its full throttle height. Over 3000 Spitfire LF.Mk IXs were built and over 1000 Spitfire Mk XVIs were built, for more than 4000 examples matching that peformance. Just be glad it isn't modeled as using 150 octane like the Spitfire Mk XVI really did.
-
No matter how many times, or how many different words you use, you saying "the He-177 was a failure" does not make it true.
Lancaster was a failue?
Only 7,300 built? Englands factories protected by USA fighters all over by 1942 when He-177 came out.
No bottom gun? Lancaster couldn't even defend itself... why does a Lancaster get F3 view? Thats a cheat right there, they couldnt see down.
Windows fogging up back there, no defrosters? Tail gunner couldnt even see if at alt.
Lanc's went to NIGHT TIME BOMBING loaded with PAPER LEAFLETS for a reason... THEY SUCKED.
-
Spit16 never saw combat! :P
Off topic circus!
-
Spit16 never saw combat! :P
Off topic circus!
So either delusional or a historical revisionist.
(The Spitfire Mk XVI saw lots of combat without even talking about it being the same as the Spitfire LF.Mk IXe)
-
Karnak won't listen to reason. He's too emotionally invested in his point of view. Thankfully he does not get to decide what HTC models or not, so there's not need to continue this.
-
You mean the historical evidence of fleets of B-17s, B-24s, Lancasters, Halifaxes, and even B-29s as compared to the trickle of unreliable He177s? You mean that evidence that one of us is ignoring?
You guys would have the Allied heavies, historically successful, be largely supplanted by a historical footnote of a failed weapons program. It is absurd.
jag88,
Cherry picking data does not strengthen your case when your cherry picked example yields the unimpressive serviceability number of 80%.
You do at least know that around 1.150 He-177s were built, basically the same number than Ju-188s, right? That most of them were A5s? The these are not just a limited run and that this is a game where you can jump on a Me-163 and the B-29's engines dont catch fire by themselves?
If you want historical fidelity you must lobby for limiting late LW aircraft to only a restricted number of new accounts, since they were used by badly trained pilots that fought outnumbered. For that purpose, just erase LW bombers, they were after all all grounded and thir pilots handed a shiny fighter and a heart-felt "good luck".
Or you can accept that this is a game...
-
Karnak won't listen to reason. He's too emotionally invested in his point of view. Thankfully he does not get to decide what HTC models or not, so there's not need to continue this.
More like the fact that I am not blinded by lust for a mythical German heavy bomber and willing to trample over any inconvenient information in order to sell my desire.
You do at least know that around 1.150 He-177s were built, basically the same number than Ju-188s, right?
Yes, about 700 of them the more or less usable A-5s.
That most of them were A5s? The these are not just a limited run and that this is a game where you can jump on a Me-163 and the B-29's engines dont catch fire by themselves?
Neither the B-29 nor Me163 had anything like the engine failure rates of even the He177A-5.
If you want historical fidelity you must lobby for limiting late LW aircraft to only a restricted number of new accounts, since they were used by badly trained pilots that fought outnumbered. For that purpose, just erase LW bombers, they were after all all grounded and thir pilots handed a shiny fighter and a heart-felt "good luck".
Or you can accept that this is a game...
That isn't the same as what I am suggesting.
-
Put the plane in game no problem. :aok
Just program it that every so often when the air is a little rough it just falls apart.
Just so it is historically correct for starters.
-
hey Retards , design flaws are not modeled in AH for any aircraft or vehicle and many of them had issues, some crippling...get over it.
-
The 4xSC500 strapped to the Ju-88 do have an impact on its speed in game, the same would happen to the Ju-188.
Obviously they do. You lose about 20mph with external loads in the 88.
The question is if the 188's bomb racks and their placement would result in more drag than the 88's.
-
I have often wondered why some people spend energy on arguing against adding something to the game. I don't fly bombers so I don't have any vested interest in the Greif. However I think it would make a cool addition to the plane set.
-
Oops. Gateway issues.
-
hey Retards , design flaws are not modeled in AH for any aircraft or vehicle and many of them had issues, some crippling...get over it.
None as bad as the He177, though late war Japanese fighters had more serious issues due to quality control, not design failure, than the He177A-5 had.
Gameplay currently:
Do you want a heavy bomb load at the expenses of light defenses? Lancaster
Do you want heavy defenses at the expense of a light bomb load? B-17G
Do you want a compromise? B-24J
After adding the He177A-5:
Do you want a heavy bomb load at the expenses of light defenses? He177A-5
Do you want heavy defenses at the expense of a light bomb load? He177A-5
Do you want a compromise? Why take a weaker option.
Now, I'll grant that the B-17G and Lancaster Mk III are almost certainly going to be able to take more punishment than the He177A-5, but the essential issue is that with a free He177A-5 effective choice is removed from the game. Games need decisions and there is no decision when you have a theoretical unperked heavy bomber lineup that looks like B-17F, B-17G, B-24D, B-24J, H8K2, Halifax Mk III, He177A-5, Lancaster Mk III, P.108, and Pe-8 there isn't really much choice if your criteria is just the most effective. The answer, in the mechanically perfect AH, will always be the He177A-5. Sure, the others will see some use for personal reasons, but the most effective ceases to be situational as it is now and becomes a single, universal answer.
Now, that being said, a theoretical unperked heavy bomber lineup that looks like B-17F, B-17G, B-24D, B-24J, H8K2, Halifax Mk III, Lancaster Mk III, P.108, and Pe-8 suddenly has those choices restored, though it has some redundancy in it, but it lacks a German heavy. Nonetheless, should that be acceptable, what then do you think an appropriate perk price for the He177A-5? It would not be as survivable as any of the current perk bombers, but it would have much better hitting power than either the Ar234B or Mosquito Mk XVI. Would an initial perk price of about the same as the Mosquito make sense? Trade survivability for hitting power?
I have often wondered why some people spend energy on arguing against adding something to the game. I don't fly bombers so I don't have any vested interest in the Greif. However I think it would make a cool addition to the plane set.
Sometimes adding something actually takes something away. In the case of the He177A-5 it takes away a meaningful choice, if added per the OPs wish.
-
More like the fact that I am not blinded by lust for a mythical German heavy bomber and willing to trample over any inconvenient information in order to sell my desire.
Yes, about 700 of them the more or less usable A-5s.
Neither the B-29 nor Me163 had anything like the engine failure rates of even the He177A-5.
That isn't the same as what I am suggesting.
What information? You havent quoted anything, you are just pullling the same warmed over mantra about the He-177 without looking at more detailed information, just because you dont want the bomber in the game and want to shoot it down at all costs.
Really? What were the engine failure rates of the A5 by late 1944? Just curious... since you mention them...
-
Obviously they do. You lose about 20mph with external loads in the 88.
The question is if the 188's bomb racks and their placement would result in more drag than the 88's.
Then why in hell where you arguing the point? External stores will affect performance, if they do they will reduce the speed to something closer to the Greif's which carries a heavier load and better defenses, in that case, why take the Ju-188?
-
I joined AH in 2008 making it a 5 year wait for the 111, I'll see the 177 in 2018 ;) :aok
-
What were the engine failure rates of the A5 by late 1944? Just curious... since you mention them...
They were irrelevant as the Germans had ceased offensive operations and all resources were being redirected to the defense of the Reich.
Please examine my large post on page 5.
-
None as bad as the He177, though late war Japanese fighters had more serious issues due to quality control, not design failure, than the He177A-5 had.
Gameplay currently:
Do you want a heavy bomb load at the expenses of light defenses? Lancaster
Do you want heavy defenses at the expense of a light bomb load? B-17G
Do you want a compromise? B-24J
After adding the He177A-5:
Do you want a heavy bomb load at the expenses of light defenses? He177A-5
Do you want heavy defenses at the expense of a light bomb load? He177A-5
Do you want a compromise? Why take a weaker option.
False.
The Greif is not better armed than the US bombers, it has a single MG131 to defend the belly with a limited field of fire, I posted the info, something that you like to ignore just because it does not fits your fantasies. Tail? A MG151, but again with a very limited field of fire.
Basically, as long as you attack from under it is not that more dangerous than a Ju-88 and significantly weaker than a US bomber. Ill repost the image, just to illustrate how full of it yo are:
(http://i376.photobucket.com/albums/oo208/jag888/Gunangles.jpg)
It will certainly replace the Lancstuka, but is that an issue? It was never the bomber, but the people willing to exploit a heavy bomber. So they will exploit whatever is there.
Now, I'll grant that the B-17G and Lancaster Mk III are almost certainly going to be able to take more punishment than the He177A-5, but the essential issue is that with a free He177A-5 effective choice is removed from the game. Games need decisions and there is no decision when you have a theoretical unperked heavy bomber lineup that looks like B-17F, B-17G, B-24D, B-24J, H8K2, Halifax Mk III, He177A-5, Lancaster Mk III, P.108, and Pe-8 there isn't really much choice if your criteria is just the most effective. The answer, in the mechanically perfect AH, will always be the He177A-5. Sure, the others will see some use for personal reasons, but the most effective ceases to be situational as it is now and becomes a single, universal answer.
Which is why everyone flies the same aircraft, the one perceived to be best, right? Your claims are simply absurd, some people will flock to the new heavy, others will keep flying what they like better or is better armed.
Now, that being said, a theoretical unperked heavy bomber lineup that looks like B-17F, B-17G, B-24D, B-24J, H8K2, Halifax Mk III, Lancaster Mk III, P.108, and Pe-8 suddenly has those choices restored, though it has some redundancy in it, but it lacks a German heavy. Nonetheless, should that be acceptable, what then do you think an appropriate perk price for the He177A-5? It would not be as survivable as any of the current perk bombers, but it would have much better hitting power than either the Ar234B or Mosquito Mk XVI. Would an initial perk price of about the same as the Mosquito make sense? Trade survivability for hitting power?
Sometimes adding something actually takes something away. In the case of the He177A-5 it takes away a meaningful choice, if added per the OPs wish.
Please specify why the Greif should be perked, in which category is it so much better than the current options. Be specific.
-
They were irrelevant as the Germans had ceased offensive operations and all resources were being redirected to the defense of the Reich.
Please examine my large post on page 5.
August was the last month they operated, what was the failure rate? Something, anything to back your assertions.
-
Now, I'll grant that the B-17G and Lancaster Mk III are almost certainly going to be able to take more punishment than the He177A-5, but the essential issue is that with a free He177A-5 effective choice is removed from the game. Games need decisions and there is no decision when you have a theoretical unperked heavy bomber lineup that looks like B-17F, B-17G, B-24D, B-24J, H8K2, Halifax Mk III, He177A-5, Lancaster Mk III, P.108, and Pe-8 there isn't really much choice if your criteria is just the most effective. The answer, in the mechanically perfect AH, will always be the He177A-5. Sure, the others will see some use for personal reasons, but the most effective ceases to be situational as it is now and becomes a single, universal answer.
... and then it would undoubtedly get perked like every other perked plane that once dominated the MA, like the F4U-1C. This isn't even an issue!
Sometimes adding something actually takes something away. In the case of the He177A-5 it takes away a meaningful choice, if added per the OPs wish.
I don't subscribe to the point of view that adding something can subtract from the game. If that was the case we should really only have one toejamty plane, because by your point of view anything added would "subtract" usage from that one plane.
-
They were irrelevant as the Germans had ceased offensive operations and all resources were being redirected to the defense of the Reich.
Please examine my large post on page 5.
That is as irrelevant as the He 177 was in R/L. AH isn't a historical game. We even have the Arado 234 for diddly's sake! All that did was sit in the snow and wait for the fuel that never arrived.
-
False.
The Greif is not better armed than the US bombers, it has a single MG131 to defend the belly with a limited field of fire, I posted the info, something that you like to ignore just because it does not fits your fantasies. Tail? A MG151, but again with a very limited field of fire.
Basically, as long as you attack from under it is not that more dangerous than a Ju-88 and significantly weaker than a US bomber. Ill repost the image, just to illustrate how full of it yo are:
(http://i376.photobucket.com/albums/oo208/jag888/Gunangles.jpg)
I didn't claim it was as well defended. I said it was better, which is a general rating. Its speed + guns + bombload means the tradeoff to take the B-17G becomes too steep to be reasonable. The B-24J is too fragile to really compete, though the He177A-5 will likely share that fragility. The speed makes the belly attack tactic much harder to pull off as anybody who tries it against Ki-67s, which are slower than the He177A-5, can tell you.
It will certainly replace the Lancstuka, it is far better suited for what already is a dumb tactic.
That is a dumb tactic. It is also a strawman and disingenuous to bring it up as the vast majority of Lancaster sorties in AH utilize the bombsite and the He177A-5 would largely replace those as well.
Which is why everyone flies the same aircraft, the one perceived to be best, right? Your claims are simply absurd, some people will flock to the new heavy, others will keep flying what they like better or is better armed.
What people fly is a complex mixture of what they like, what is potent and what is socially acceptable. How much weight they give each of those things varies. From a game design perspective you don't want to have a single choice that is significantly more correct than the other choices.
Please specify why the Greif should be perked, in which category is it so much better than the current options. Be specific.
Its speed, bomb load and defensive guns combine to make it dominant over any other heavy bomber other than the B-29. Its guns are not the best and the Lancaster slightly exceeds it in terms of bomb load, but its speed is far better than any other free heavy bomber, its bomb load is only slightly lower than the very vulnerable Lancaster and its guns are still fairly good. Primarily it is the speed and bomb load that push it into perk territory, but its guns are good enough to help it in that direction as well. Its primary weakness is fragility, likely to be modeled by a somewhat weaker fuselage and engines easily set alight. The B-29 is also rather easily set alight and that did not hamper its being perked.
-
I don't subscribe to the point of view that adding something can subtract from the game. If that was the case we should really only have one toejamty plane, because by your point of view anything added would "subtract" usage from that one plane.
No. Adding the Lancaster increased choices. Before the Lancaster was added the only choice was the B-17G, but the Lancaster Mk III added the choice of light defenses in favor of a heavy bomb load against the choice of heavy defenses in favor of a light bomb load. Each was situationally the better choice.
That is just one example, but in most cases adding something adds choices.
If the He177A-5 were a perk plane, as distasteful as I find that, it would solve the problem, but as you can see from recent exchanges, jag88 (I am always inherently suspicious of German fans with "88" in their name due to its skinhead association) sees it as a free plane, not a perk plane.
-
I guess 88mm never crossed you mind...
Why are you arguing this? Jag88 doesn't get to decide what gets perked or not, nor do you. Are the AH skies filled with Arados and 262s? NO! Why? Because the perk system works!
That you don't like the Greif is as irrelevant as the most of your posts in this thread. If it is added sometime down the road, just don't fly it, and I'm sure you'd still love to blast it out of the sky with your wooden wonder.
-
from wikipedia.com :rock
From first paragraph
Luftwaffe aircrew nicknamed it the Luftwaffenfeuerzeug (Luftwaffe's lighter) or the "Flaming Coffin" due to the serious engine problems on initial versions of the aircraft. When these problems were later rectified, the type was successful, but it could not be deployed in large numbers due to Germany's deteriorating situation in the war."
From further down at 'engines' part:
Starting with the He 177 A-3/R2, a modified engine nacelle with a new "power system", the Daimler-Benz DB 610, each of which consisted of a pair of Daimler-Benz DB 605s set up to work as one as the DB 606 had been, was used to eliminate the tendency for engine fires. With the introduction of the DB 610 came several improvements including the relocation of the engine oil tank, the lengthening of the engine mountings by 20 cm (8 in), the complete redesign of the exhaust system which also facilitated the installation of exhaust dampers for night missions, and the setting of a power limitation on the engines which resulted in greater reliability. These modifications, supposedly numbering 56 of both major and minor varieties, were successful as far as eliminating engine fires were concerned, but other minor problems with the transfer gearbox between the two component engines of each "power system" and their shared propeller remained."
10th version: He-177 A-3/R2 NO MORE FIRES, MOST BUGS FIXED!
16th verison: He-177 A-5 had 826 made, bug free!
33 versions total!
MR HITECH, MR PYRO, TEEEEAAR DOOOOWN THIIIS WAALLL, give us a neato BIG bomber! :salute
Following list is from this site:
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he177-variants.html
He 177V1 to V8
8 prototypes built in total. He 177V4 and subsequent aircraft powered by DB 606 A/B engines.
He 177V-1.
[Source: Unknown]
He 177A-0
Pre-production series, 35 built. First to use the "Cabin 3" cockpit with "fishbowl" framed glazed nose, as with production A-series.
He 177A-1
First production series, 130 built. Armed with a single MG 81 in the nose, a single MG FF cannon in the forward end of the Bola ventral gondola, a remote controlled dorsal turret with a single (later twinned) MG 131, and a single tail mounted MG 131.
He 177A-1/R1
Equipped with a supplementary pair of aft firing MG 81 in the rear of the Bola ventral gondola.
He 177A-1/R2
Equipped with a sighting station in the rear of the Bola ventral gondola for a remotely controlled ventral turret housing a single MG 131.
He 177A-1/R4
Equipped with a supplementary aft firing MG 131 in the rear of the Bola ventral gondola and a manned aft dorsal turret containing an MG 131.
He 177A-1/U2
Zerstörer heavy fighter with a pair of limited-traverse 30 mm MK 101 cannon in enlarged Bola lower nose mount, twelve conversions.
He 177A-2
Proposed four-man pressurized variant with reduced defensive armament of six MG 81 and a single MG 131, never built.
He 177A-3
Second production series, 170 built, with 1.6 meter-longer lengthened rear fuselage. Sixteenth and subsequent aircraft powered by DB 610 A/B engines.
He 177A-3/R1
Powered by two Daimler-Benz DB 606 A/B engines, fifteen built.
He 177A-3/R2
Improved electrical system. MG FF cannon replaced by an MG 151 cannon in the Bola ventral gondola. Larger redesigned tail position, MG 131 replaced by MG 151 cannon in the tail position.
He 177A-3/R3
Anti-shipping version capable of using the Henschel Hs 293, equipped with Kehl control gear.
He 177A-3/R4
Bola Ventral gondola lengthened by 1.2 m (3 ft 11 in) to provide room for the FuG 203b Kehl III missile-control equipment.
He 177A-3/R5
Planned, never-built Stalingradtyp version armed with a 75 mm Bordkanone BK 7,5 cannon based on the 7.5 cm PaK 40 installed in the ventral Bola gondola, also used on the Junkers Ju 88 P-1, based on a small number of 177As actually field-equipped as A-3/Rüstsatz 5 machines, with the KwK 39-based Bordkanone BK 5 cannon.
He 177A-3/R7
Torpedo bomber version abandoned in favor of the He 177A-5, only three built.
He 177A-4
Proposed high altitude pressurised version, never built under the designation, and later developed into the Heinkel He 274.
He 177A-5
Main production series, 826 built. Standardized the A-3's longer rear fuselage, strengthened wing, shortened undercarriage oleo legs, increase in maximum external bombload.
He 177 A-5 tail gun position, with MG 151 cannon.
[Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-676-7972A-34/Blaschka/CC-BY-SA]
He 177A-5/R1
Version optimized for Fritz X and Hs 293 guided bombs, equipped with Kehl control gear.
He 177A-5/R2
Armed with a single MG 81 in the nose, a single MG 151 cannon in the forward end of the Bola ventral gondola, a pair of MG 81 in the rear end of the ventral gondola, a pair of MG 131 in an FDL 131Z remotely controlled forward dorsal turret, a single MG 131 in a manned aft dorsal turret, and a single tail mounted MG 151 cannon.
He 177A-5/R4
Simplified bomb rack installation, equipped with Kehl control gear.
He 177A-5/R5
Tested with a supplementary pair of MG 131 in an FDL 131Z aft ventral remote turret aft of the rear bomb-bay, only one built.
He 177A-5/R6
Replacement of the forward and central bomb-bays with enlarged, full-fuselage-depth fuel tanks.
He 177A-5/R7
Pressurised cockpit study with a projected ceiling of 15,200 m (49,869 ft) and similar reduced armament to the He 177A-2.
He 177A-5/R8
Armed with FDL-series remote gun turrets. Abandoned as a result of difficulties with the turrets, only one built.
He 177A-5 Grosszerstörer
Anti-bomber variant based on the He 177A-5, armed with up to 33 spin-stabilised 21 cm calibre rockets obliquely mounted in fuselage, replacing bomb bays and auxiliary fuel tanks, and most likely based on components of the 21 cm Nebelwerfer 42 infantry barrage rocket system. Five examples delivered in January 1944 for operational trials. Abandoned due to increasing numbers of Allied escort fighters.
He 177A-6
Meant to be a "32 metric-ton" loaded-weight long-range bomber, as a planned improvement over the A-5 version, the A-6 dispensed with the rear manned dorsal turret, and retained the A-5/R2's single MG 151 flexible cannon at the front of the Bola, the flexible ball-mount MG 81 in the "fishbowl" nose glazing, along with the regular A-series FDL 131Z remote forward dorsal turret, and standardized the rear armament with the planned Hecklafette manned HL 131V quadmount MG 131 machine gun turret for the first time. Not produced, due to building volume of design work on the He 177B-series four-engined aircraft.
He 177A-6/R1
Replacement of the forward and central bomb bays with full-fuselage-depth fuel tanks (as on the A-5/Rüstsätz 6 modification) and the addition of external bomb rack under the new fuel tank bays, capable of carrying a single 2,500 kg (5,511 lb) bomb or Fritz X/Hs 293 in addition to the rear bomb-bay loadout, if equipped with Kehl control gear. Range of 5,800 km (3,604 mi), only six test conversions built, from A-5 versions.
He 177A-6/R2
Equipped with a redesigned fuselage nose of improved aerodynamic form, abandoning the earlier "Cabin 3" A-series cockpit, with the new nose being generally the same as intended for He 177A-7 and all He 177B development versions. Retained the FDL 131 remotely controlled forward dorsal turret, a single flexible-mount MG 131 in the rear of the Bola, a pair of MG 151 cannon in a remotely controlled FDL 151Z "chin" turret (to be standardized on the B-version) at the front of the Bola, and a manned HL 131V MG 131which itself was wrecked in a mishap in late July 1944.
He 177A-7
High-altitude bomber with an extended wing spanning 36 m (118 ft 11/3 in) and with DB 610 A/B engines instead of the intended 3,800 PS (3,748 hp, 2,795 kW) DB 613 "power systems", using pairs of twinned DB 603 engines. Six examples, for wing tests, converted from He 177A-5 airframes, but never fitted with the intended He 177B-series advanced cockpit. One captured by American forces, scrapped postwar and believed buried under the grounds of Chicago's O'Hare International Airport.
He 177A-8
First proposed He 177design to feature four individual engines, using the A-3 or A-5 fuselage with a new wing design, and either Daimler-Benz DB 603 or Junkers Jumo 213 engines with Heinkel He 219 style annular radiators. Remained a paper project only, before re-designation as the "He 177B-5" by August 1943.
He 177A-10
Proposed four-engined He 177design, similar to the He 177A-8, but based instead on the He 177A-7 definitive production fuselage, with manned rear dorsal gun turret omitted, and re-designated as the "He 177B-7" in August 1943.
He 177B
Developed as the direct, "separate four-engined" development of the "coupled engine" powered He 177A-series, four prototypes ordered (He 177V101 to V104) with three built and flown under DB 603 power. Originally postulated in postwar aviation books to have been a "cover designation" for the never-produced, paper-only He 277 Amerika Bomber design competitor.
He 177H
Initial project designation for the Heinkel He 274.
He 177V38
An A-5 (Werknummer 550 002, bearing Stammkennzeichen of KM+TB) – documented use was as testbed for FuG 200 Hohentwiel ASV maritime patrol radar with flexible MG 131Z nose gun installation, speculated to have been intended for the installation of an enlarged bombbay to be used in the Junkers Ju 287. A common myth claims V38 was the prototype for a German "atomic bomber" (purportedly capable of carrying a fission device as a droppable weapon). Remains found at Prague's Rusiye field on V-E Day.
-
I didn't claim it was as well defended. I said it was better, which is a general rating. Its speed + guns + bombload means the tradeoff to take the B-17G becomes too steep to be reasonable. The B-24J is too fragile to really compete, though the He177A-5 will likely share that fragility. The speed makes the belly attack tactic much harder to pull off as anybody who tries it against Ki-67s, which are slower than the He177A-5, can tell you.
1- You set an option for heavy defenses, the US bombers will win that, dont backtrack.
2- No, the He-177 is not fragile, is one of those dumb things that get often repeated until becomes a mantra, the aircraft was stressed for inclined flights and flew at 680kph after dropping its bombs during Steinbock (Nowarra).
3- Fully loaded it makes 445kph, so pretty much everyone will catch it.
That is a dumb tactic. It is also a strawman and disingenuous to bring it up as the vast majority of Lancaster sorties in AH utilize the bombsite and the He177A-5 would largely replace those as well.
And that is the only are in which will clearly replace another bomber, people who dont care about the aircrafts history or nationality and just want to suicide with a lot of bombs. Others will use it since it is better defended than the Lancaster, but that is life in AH, it has happened so many times...
What people fly is a complex mixture of what they like, what is potent and what is socially acceptable. How much weight they give each of those things varies. From a game design perspective you don't want to have a single choice that is significantly more correct than the other choices.
And this one isnt.
Its speed, bomb load and defensive guns combine to make it dominant over any other heavy bomber other than the B-29. Its guns are not the best and the Lancaster slightly exceeds it in terms of bomb load, but its speed is far better than any other free heavy bomber, its bomb load is only slightly lower than the very vulnerable Lancaster and its guns are still fairly good. Primarily it is the speed and bomb load that push it into perk territory, but its guns are good enough to help it in that direction as well. Its primary weakness is fragility, likely to be modeled by a somewhat weaker fuselage and engines easily set alight. The B-29 is also rather easily set alight and that did not hamper its being perked.
What speed are you talking about, with what load, I love to see some sources since I am the only one quoting numbers here and not just whining about speed. B-29 carries a lot more bombs, flies a lot higher, a lot faster and is far, far better defended than anything else, attempting to set a paralell here between them is simply ridiculous.
-
If the He177A-5 were a perk plane, as distasteful as I find that, it would solve the problem, but as you can see from recent exchanges, jag88 (I am always inherently suspicious of German fans with "88" in their name due to its skinhead association) sees it as a free plane, not a perk plane.
This from you again?
Listen pal, I have nothing to do with skinheads or any other moronic movement of the kind..
-
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he177-specifications.htmlHEINKEL He 177
Specifications - He 177 A-5/R2
Type:
Long range heavy bomber
Origin: Heinkel Flugzeugwerke
Designer: Siegfried Gunter
Crew: Six
First Flight: November 1939
Service Delivery: 1942
Retirement: 1945
Production:
Prototypes: 8
He 177 A-0: 35
He 177 A-1: 130 (Produced from January 1942 - January 1943)
He 177 A-3: 615 (Produced from November 1942 - June 1944)
He 177 A-5: 349 (Produced from December 1943 - August 1944)
Total: 1,137
Engine:
Model: Daimler-Benz DB 610
Type:
24-cylinder liquid-cooled inline piston engines
Number: Two Horsepower: N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimensions:
Length: 22 m (72 ft 2 in)
Wingspan: 31.44 m (103 ft 1¾ in)
Height: 6.67 m (21 ft 10 in)
Wing area: 100.00 m² (1,076.40 ft²)
Weights:
Empty weight: 16,800 kg (37,038 lb)
Loaded weight: 32,000 kg (70,548 lb)
Performance:
Maximum Speed:
– 565 kph (351 mph) at 6,000 (19,685 ft)
Stall speed: 135 kph (84 mph)
Combat radius: 1,540 km (957 mi)
Ferry range: 5,600 km (3,480 mi)
Service ceiling: 8,000 m (26,246 ft)
Rate of climb: 190 m/min (623 ft/min)
Wing loading: 303.9 kg/m² (62.247 lb/ft²)
Armament:
1 × 7.92 mm MG 81 machine gun in nose
1 × 20 mm MG 151 cannon in forward ventral Bola gondola position
1 × 13 mm MG 131 machine gun in rear ventral Bola gondola position
2 × 13 mm MG 131 machine guns in FDL 131Z remotely operated forward dorsal turret, full 360° traverse
1 × 13 mm MG 131 machine gun in manned Hydraulische Drehlafette HDL 131I aft dorsal turret
1 × 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon in tail position
Bombload:
Up to 6,000 kg (13,227 lb) of ordnance internally/7,200 kg (15,873 lb) externally or up to 3 Fritz X or Henschel Hs 293 PGMs (w/FuG 203 Kehl MCLOS transmitter installed)
-
Then why in hell where you arguing the point? External stores will affect performance, if they do they will reduce the speed to something closer to the Greif's which carries a heavier load and better defenses, in that case, why take the Ju-188?
They lessen the speed..... to a still respectable, and use full ~310 mph, depending on exact load outs, variant, and altitude. This was my entire point.
Currently, we have two free bombers who can make more than 300mph at a reasonable altitude, and another that does 301 at 40k. The Ju188 and Do 217 would be class of the field for speed.
They would see very decent use, particularly in the role of a raider, and fast-strike bomber.
And most importantly, they wouldn't be unhistoricaly dominant. Screw the 177, we don't need it. Little to no special event usage, and laughably unbalanced in the MA's.
-
Let me just ask, what are the reasons you would NOT take the He 177 in any given situation, considering it would be THE most tactically flexible level bombing platform in the game?
I want specific numbers for things like range, ordnance capacity, and speed, if they are contributing factors in your choice.
-
I guess 88mm never crossed you mind...
Yes, it does, but 88 is used for other purposes in the USA among skinheads. My suspicion is not unfounded in my experience.
However in this case it is not that, nor is it the 88mm gun. I did not recall that jag88 was the gentleman I previously discussed this with and I owe him an appology for having raised the issue here at all.
jag88, my sincere apology for having mentioned that at all. It shall not be mentioned again nor do I think you share that kind of thought pattern. I'll gladly defend you from such accusations.
-
Suspicions should never be voiced unless there is something more than... suspicions. Good to see you're retracting your accusations. I respect that. <S>
-
Yes, it does, but 88 is used for other purposes in the USA among skinheads. My suspicion is not unfounded in my experience.
However in this case it is not that, nor is it the 88mm gun. I did not recall that jag88 was the gentleman I previously discussed this with and I owe him an appology for having raised the issue here at all.
jag88, my sincere apology for having mentioned that at all. It shall not be mentioned again nor do I think you share that kind of thought pattern. I'll gladly defend you from such accusations.
No problem, I apologize for the words as well, I just dont like the association one bit. Eternal damnation to whomever took my usual handle, JAG, and forced me to use a number that I thought completely harmless at the time.
-
Let me just ask, what are the reasons you would NOT take the He 177 in any given situation, considering it would be THE most tactically flexible level bombing platform in the game?
I want specific numbers for things like range, ordnance capacity, and speed, if they are contributing factors in your choice.
Speed in a heavy is pretty much irrelevant, fully loaded you are slow, contemporary fighters will catch you and the He-177 is no exception, it is barely faster than a B-24.
If heavy opposition is expected then armament is a must and the US bombers will be the best option.
If there is a fighter escort or light opposition then take the He-177.
If range is an issue then the Lanc.
But, I cant really compare numbers if the He-177 is not in the game now, can I?
Re the Ju-188 it was limited to 2t of bombs IIRC lacking some an internal bay making all ordnance internal, but I would have to look into that. It even has an interesting armament with 2xMG151 a MG131 and a MG81Z, but it is no heavy bomber... The bit of extra speed is nice (I like the guns better) an will make you harder to intercept, but you will not get away from anyone if the enemy pilot is determined to chase you.
Dont get me wrong, I would LOVE the Ju-188A, but between it and a true heavy...
-
Speed in a heavy is pretty much irrelevant, fully loaded you are slow, contemporary fighters will catch you and the He-177 is no exception, it is barely faster than a B-24.
Speed is in no way irrelevant. Less important, yes, but it still matters.
It carries more ordnance than the B-24, at similar speeds, with strong defenses. If you want more speed, take less ords. You can still carry a good load at high speed.
If heavy opposition is expected then armament is a must and the US bombers will be the best option.
not necessarily. Boston's are more survivable in some cases, because they're damn hard to intercept.
If there is a fighter escort or light opposition then take the He-177.
No, you take whatever you want, because it will probably make it.
If range is an issue then the Lanc.
Range is never an issue. I've start bombed in Ju-88s before. You can get any heavy in the game across the map on a full tank.
But, I cant really compare numbers if the He-177 is not in the game now, can I?
find an original source with a speed chart. There are some.
But the point is that you can make the 177 fit any mission profile, which no other bomber could do in AH. That would make it the most flexible and most used in the game.
Re the Ju-188 it was limited to 2t of bombs IIRC lacking some an internal bay making all ordnance internal, but I would have to look into that. It even has an interesting armament with 2xMG151 a MG131 and a MG81Z, but it is no heavy bomber... The bit of extra speed is nice (I like the guns better), but you will not get away from anyone if the enemy pilot is determined to chase you.
6000lbs for the Ju-188, by a quick trip to wiki. Likely the max was higher, given the Ju-88 could carry 6000lbs, and the 188's weight capacity was higher.
Do 217 could carry 6600lbs internally at 347mph with ok-ish guns. 8800lbs with external mounts.
And the goal isn't to outrun them, its to be fast enough to make it back to base, and execute a high-speed landing before you get caught.
-
How fast would the He177A-5 be with 13,000ish lbs of bombs and ~50% fuel? That would likely be its most commonly used configuration in AH. The top speed wikipedia lists is 351mph at 6,000m. With 13,000lbs internally I'd expect it to be doing about 340mph, faster than the Ki-67 and much faster than the B-17, B-24 or Lancaster.
As a Mossie aficionado I can tell you speed is life. It is the single most important survival trait of a bomber. The Mosquito Mk XVI only does about 390mph when laden and yet it is almost impossible for even P-47Ns and Ta152s to catch despite being 80mph slower than they are. Don't try to handwave that speed advantage away as it is huge.
-
From a game perspective it is too bad that the Japanese didn't get the G8N Renzan 'Rita' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_G8N) into service. It would make for a nice perk bomber as well.
From a history perspective I am glad they didn't get it in service. It wouldn't have changed the ultimate outcome, but more Americans and Japanese likely would have died due to it.
-
Supposed speed for the He 177 A-3 with climb&combat power was 550km/h in 6.8 km alt. Does not tell anything about weight though. If the engines were derated by one step to improve reliability expect this to be slower but expect it to be a lot faster if using a glide approach to target.
The range with full load of 7t was supposed to be 1100km, medium load of 4t = ~3000km
Some speeds for Ju 188E:
510 km/h with climb&combat power and four external fuselage racks installed. Each of them is supposed to cause a speed loss of 5km/h
All three following values with 14.7t weight and all four external racks
2x 1000kg bombs = 460 km/h
4x 500kg bombs = 425 km/h
2x 1000 + 2x 500kg = 415 km/h
I expect the Ju 188A to be faster than the 188E - Jumo 213 has more power and less draggy design
BTW the He 177 wasn't a massive failure but the program was - the unrealistic dive bombing requirement played a major part in the trouble that plagued early He 177.
-
How fast would the He177A-5 be with 13,000ish lbs of bombs and ~50% fuel? That would likely be its most commonly used configuration in AH. The top speed wikipedia lists is 351mph at 6,000m. With 13,000lbs internally I'd expect it to be doing about 340mph, faster than the Ki-67 and much faster than the B-17, B-24 or Lancaster.
As a Mossie aficionado I can tell you speed is life. It is the single most important survival trait of a bomber. The Mosquito Mk XVI only does about 390mph when laden and yet it is almost impossible for even P-47Ns and Ta152s to catch despite being 80mph slower than they are. Don't try to handwave that speed advantage away as it is huge.
That has been your problem from the start you are using wikipedia as a source.
-
Speed is in no way irrelevant. Less important, yes, but it still matters.
It carries more ordnance than the B-24, at similar speeds, with strong defenses. If you want more speed, take less ords. You can still carry a good load at high speed.
not necessarily. Boston's are more survivable in some cases, because they're damn hard to intercept.
No, you take whatever you want, because it will probably make it.
Range is never an issue. I've start bombed in Ju-88s before. You can get any heavy in the game across the map on a full tank.
find an original source with a speed chart. There are some.
But the point is that you can make the 177 fit any mission profile, which no other bomber could do in AH. That would make it the most flexible and most used in the game.
6000lbs for the Ju-188, by a quick trip to wiki. Likely the max was higher, given the Ju-88 could carry 6000lbs, and the 188's weight capacity was higher.
Do 217 could carry 6600lbs internally at 347mph with ok-ish guns. 8800lbs with external mounts.
And the goal isn't to outrun them, its to be fast enough to make it back to base, and execute a high-speed landing before you get caught.
I seriously doubt the Do-217 can make that, much less loaded. The Ju-188 carried 3t max.
Nowarra indicates 528kph for the 217M1, 520kph for the 188A2 and 520kph 177A5/R7, I would assume light. Why? You speak German right? Maybe you can help us here:
(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/151797d1289907083-b-17-vs-he-177-vs-lancaster-p1100048.jpg)
These are the number from the LW in 1944, as you can see 490kph is the top speed at mid-weight, that is 26t (Gm), 5t short of max (Ga). That matches nicely with the data for Nowarra.
The 560kph I believe comes form earlier data from Heinkel, so either the aircraft did not meet the specs or (as I suspect) the engines were afterwards limited as a safety measure (look at the hp for the A3 and A5, see the difference?):
(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/85637d1236108177-he177-speed-climb-he177a3-data.jpg)
It claims 550kph at Gm, but the LW date form 1944 indicates only 490kph at that weight. Btw, since the later and faster B5 was expected to make 569kph without the aft dorsal and nose turrets I think is clear the A5 was not capable of a similar speed in level flight.
I would expect the Greif to make the indicated 520kph when light, no bombs and reduced fuel, but with 7t bombs and with half fuel (4400l) it would be over the Gm by 1t and therefore slower than 490kph.
-
double
-
That has been your problem from the start you are using wikipedia as a source.
Nope, not that wikipedia is as bad as people make it out to be. That was just a quick reference as I don't have good sources at work. That is why I was asking.
-
Nope, not that wikipedia is as bad as people make it out to be. That was just a quick reference as I don't have good sources at work. That is why I was asking.
Cant you read?
-
Cant you read?
Yes, the post above my last one you estimate a speed of 303mph when loaded with 13,000lbs and 50% fuel and 323mph when light. You don't give any source for that estimate though.
How well does the He177 fly on a single engine?
-
Supposed speed for the He 177 A-3 with climb&combat power was 550km/h in 6.8 km alt. Does not tell anything about weight though. If the engines were derated by one step to improve reliability expect this to be slower but expect it to be a lot faster if using a glide approach to target.
The range with full load of 7t was supposed to be 1100km, medium load of 4t = ~3000km
Some speeds for Ju 188E:
510 km/h with climb&combat power and four external fuselage racks installed. Each of them is supposed to cause a speed loss of 5km/h
All three following values with 14.7t weight and all four external racks
2x 1000kg bombs = 460 km/h
4x 500kg bombs = 425 km/h
2x 1000 + 2x 500kg = 415 km/h
I expect the Ju 188A to be faster than the 188E - Jumo 213 has more power and less draggy design
BTW the He 177 wasn't a massive failure but the program was - the unrealistic dive bombing requirement played a major part in the trouble that plagued early He 177.
Sounds about right, where did you get the Ju-188E numbers?
-
Yes, the post above my last one you estimate a speed of 303mph when loaded with 13,000lbs and 50% fuel and 323mph when light. You don't give any source for that estimate though.
How well does the He177 fly on a single engine?
I did, the source is Nowarra, read again.
The 490kph for a 10t payload is my estimate based on the figures from the primary source, it actually should be 485kph or less since that would be 1t heavier than the 9t payloads mentioned therein; check your browser, you seem to be unable to see the image.
As I said before on an earlier post, it cant fly with 1 engine when over 22t.
-
Jag, the picture you were trying to post isn't showing.
-
How about now?
(http://i376.photobucket.com/albums/oo208/jag888/He-177data_zps12d44b02.jpg)
-
(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/151797d1289907083-b-17-vs-he-177-vs-lancaster-p1100048.jpg)
Larger version:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,334800.msg4404442.html#msg4404442
-
Yup, that's better.
Edit: The larger version doesn't show. Prolly need to be logged in somewhere to see it.
-
Jag, post better pictures if possible. Text becomes too blurred when I zoom in.
And I would not at all be surprised if the Do 217 could do 347 with internal only. The B-29 can go about that fast, and is much larger, and much much heavier.
Ju-188A could likely do about 310mph with externals. Its incredibly unlikely it could only do 415km/hr, considering the Ju-88 does about the same while having more drag, and weaker engines.
-
(http://i376.photobucket.com/albums/oo208/jag888/h2_zps1fbed2fd.png)
Right click on the image, open in new tab, voilá.
-
Jag, post better pictures if possible. Text becomes too blurred when I zoom in.
And I would not at all be surprised if the Do 217 could do 347 with internal only. The B-29 can go about that fast, and is much larger, and much much heavier.
Ju-188A could likely do about 310mph with externals. Its incredibly unlikely it could only do 415km/hr, considering the Ju-88 does about the same while having more drag, and weaker engines.
Griehl mentions 510kph at 12,7t, 4t below max, at 5.000m for the 217K1, the 213 M1 should be slightly higher. Nowarra says 515Kph without mentioning weight or altitude and so does Price, indicating that there is conflicting data and that he prefers RLM's over Dornier's.
What do your sources say?
What does this mean, btw?
"Damit ließen sich bei einem mittleren Fluggewicht, so die Werksangaben, in Bodennähe 430 km/h, in der Volldruckhöhe von 5200 m, eine Höchstgeschwindigkeit von immerhin rund 520 km/h erreichen."
520 at 5200m and 430 on the deck at medium weight?
-
Sounds about right, where did you get the Ju-188E numbers?
Rechlin test report of Ju 188E tested with various loadout variants. Dated 30.7.1943, flame dampers not used.
Regarding the He 177 GL/C page - the A-5 has flame dampers there. No flame dampers noted on the A-3 but two Hs 293 as external load.
-
What does this mean, btw?
"Damit ließen sich bei einem mittleren Fluggewicht, so die Werksangaben, in Bodennähe 430 km/h, in der Volldruckhöhe von 5200 m, eine Höchstgeschwindigkeit von immerhin rund 520 km/h erreichen."
520 at 5200m and 430 on the deck at medium weight?
Yes.
-
Rough translation: For a medium weight in flight at factory specs max speed at ground level 430 kmh. At full pressure height of 5,200 meters max speed of approx. 520 kmh.
-
Griehl mentions 510kph at 12,7t, 4t below max, at 5.000m for the 217K1, the 213 M1 should be slightly higher. Nowarra says 515Kph without mentioning weight or altitude and so does Price, indicating that there is conflicting data and that he prefers RLM's over Dornier's.
What do your sources say?
What does this mean, btw?
"Damit ließen sich bei einem mittleren Fluggewicht, so die Werksangaben, in Bodennähe 430 km/h, in der Volldruckhöhe von 5200 m, eine Höchstgeschwindigkeit von immerhin rund 520 km/h erreichen."
520 at 5200m and 430 on the deck at medium weight?
Add in 'at least' before the 520. Where is that coming from, BTW?
-
Lusche, as a bomber driver and bomber hunter, what would your expectations of the He177A-5 be? Where would it fit in with the other four heavy bombers in Aces High?
-
Rechlin test report of Ju 188E tested with various loadout variants. Dated 30.7.1943, flame dampers not used.
Regarding the He 177 GL/C page - the A-5 has flame dampers there. No flame dampers noted on the A-3 but two Hs 293 as external load.
Thx, that is a big help, sadly it confirms what I expected, large external loads murder performance.
Yes, I noticed, which bothers me since it was the only data point we had for Ga and is contaminated by parasitic drag. In any case, if I am not mistaken max speed at full load must sit somewhere between the 410kph (with added drag) max continuous indicated for the A3, and the 490kph max military indicated for medium weight. Maybe thats is the explanation for the 440kph listed by Griehl?
Btw, I apologize, I mentioned 520kph for the 177A5/R7...which is a different version of the Greif and not the R2 in discussion, I think that one was a pressurized model IIRC.
-
Add in 'at least' before the 520. Where is that coming from, BTW?
Griehl's book on the 217, commenting on the Do-217K1, and then on the next page mentions 510kph, which is odd. I guess the 12,7t weight referred must be slightly above medium weight.
What were your sources again?
-
Thx to all for the translations btw.
-
Lusche, as a bomber driver and bomber hunter, what would your expectations of the He177A-5 be? Where would it fit in with the other four heavy bombers in Aces High?
The He 177 is a topic on which I'm torn in every direction :lol
If implemented in a late, relatively bug free version (as it's usually the case in AH), it would certainly get one quite dominant bomber by the specs alone. Now it would not be the first plane or GV in AH being so (just think of the Me 163), but it would be still very awkward to me., especially the prospect of potentially having to give it a light perk.
So while I'm not totally against it, I'm much more for the addition of a different Luftwaffe bomber, either the Do 217 (my fav) or the Ju 188 (your fav). Both would make much sense both from a historical as well as a gameplay balance point of view.
The fact that we got another slow EW bomber for the Luftwaffe really came as a blow to me. :(
-
Griehl's book on the 217, commenting on the Do-217K1, and then on the next page mentions 510kph, which is odd. I guess the 12,7t weight referred must be slightly above medium weight.
What were your sources again?
At work right now. Using my phone. I'll get back to you when I get home.
-
The He 177 is a topic on which I'm torn in every direction :lol
If implemented in a late, relatively bug free version (as it's usually the case in AH), it would certainly get one quite dominant bomber by the specs alone. Now it would not be the first plane or GV in AH being so (just think of the Me 163), but it would be still very awkward to me., especially the prospect of potentially having to give it a light perk.
Indeed on the awkward count. Where do you think it would stand in comparison to the B-17G, B-24J and Lancaster Mk III?
So while I'm not totally against it, I'm much more for the addition of a different Luftwaffe bomber, either the Do 217 (my fav) or the Ju 188 (your fav). Both would make much sense both from a historical as well as a gameplay balance point of view.
Ju188A is so pretty and it has a top turret with 360 degree rotation mounting an MG151/20....
The fact that we got another slow EW bomber for the Luftwaffe really came as a blow to me. :(
The He111 is a classic looking bomber and I will up one now and then, but I suspect that the G4M1 will actually prove to be more survivable in the LWA....
-
The He 177 is a topic on which I'm torn in every direction :lol
If implemented in a late, relatively bug free version (as it's usually the case in AH), it would certainly get one quite dominant bomber by the specs alone. Now it would not be the first plane or GV in AH being so (just think of the Me 163), but it would be still very awkward to me., especially the prospect of potentially having to give it a light perk.
So while I'm not totally against it, I'm much more for the addition of a different Luftwaffe bomber, either the Do 217 (my fav) or the Ju 188 (your fav). Both would make much sense both from a historical as well as a gameplay balance point of view.
The fact that we got another slow EW bomber for the Luftwaffe really came as a blow to me. :(
If I may, I am not so sure.
In order to carry the 7t load the He-177 had a range of 1.100KM, beyond that the load is reduced to 4t since the bomber would have to be modified to Rust-B, so the Lanc would still hold a load/range advantage over it and the US bombers a defensive one. I do agree, however, that it would be the most balanced offer and that would make it attractive, but that does not mean the aircraft bests the others by far. For example, for Steinbock the load was 5,6t on this track:
(http://i376.photobucket.com/albums/oo208/jag888/Steinbock_zps24e2c2fd.png)
Theoretically it was within the 1.100Km, but still the load was not the full one, I would guess it had to do with the unreliable engines since early in 1944 they were still a major problem. In any case, it should illustrate that the 7t option would be a limited one so it wont overshadow the Lanc completely.
-
Flights of more than about 600km round trip are extreme rarities. Most flights likely only cover 240km or less round trip.
Sectors are only 25miles (40km) wide.
-
The developement of the He 177 started 1936, almost simultaneously with British specification P.13/36 which resulted the Avro Manchester and Handley Page Halifax. Interesting comparisons can be made between these three types:
- specification wise the He 177 was more advanced, targeting 500km/h while British demanded minimum 275mph at 15k
- also British specification included shallow (30deg) dive bombing requirement
- originally all three were supposed to be twin engined planes but Halifax specifacation was soon changed to four Merlins due to the troubles with the Vulture
- eventually four engined versions were developed by the Avro and Heinkel as well (Lancaster, He 177B/277/274)
- the prototype He 177 flew November 1939, just few months after the prototypes of the Manchester and Halifax (July and September 1939)
- both, Manchester and Halifax, entered service November 1940
- developement of the He 177 was slowed down by engine trouble and continous specification changes, entering service spring 1942
- early service of the He 177 and Manchester was ruined by engine trouble
- RAF gave up with Manchester after about 200 were built, withdrawing it from service 1942 in favor of the Lancaster
- most He 177 problems were solved at the end of 1942 but continous modifications kept the serviceable number low despite over 1000 built
- developing and manufacturing this kind of bombers tied the most resources of the manufacturers, neither Heinkel, Avro nor Handley Page got any other new designs to the large scale production during war
-
I am aware of that, but since it appears the He-177 is expected to outclass the Lanc and such a thing appear to be a supreme heresy I wanted to put some perspective on the issue. Not only that, the defensive advantage exists truly only on top (3x13mm vs 2x7,7mm) and bottom (1x13mm in barbette vs nothing), on the back the 2x13mm have an advantage over the single barbette 20mm with a quite limited field of fire, with a similar case for the front. And as we have seen, fully loaded speeds would be pretty much the same.
A 217 would be great, save for the weak defensive armament, I would have loved to have the version with 3 or four torpedoes or a perk option for a Fritz-X. The 188 is very attractive and has decent weapons, but a mostly external payload makes it more likely to use them as well. I would still enjoy any of them... only that it would kill the Ju-88 and therefore we shouldnt get it, right?
-
Ju88 is already dead and is a non-factor in considerations.
-
Well, after all the Ju 88 and the He 111 remained the work horses of the LW bomber force until the end, despite more advanced planes like the Ju 188, Do 217 and He 177 entered the service at varying success. While in the case of the RAF, the Lancaster and Halifax became the dominant heavy bombers.
However, there is certainly more room for the late war LW bombers in the game, there is just the Ar 234 now; a rarity in real life, even if compared to the He 177.
-
I am pretty sure the Ar234 was added solely to give an obvious perk bomber that wouldn't take HTC a massive amount of work like the B-29. Other perk bombers like the Mosquito Mk XVI and, in the future, A-26 don't jump out at people as big draw perk units.
-
Well, after all the Ju 88 and the He 111 remained the work horses of the LW bomber force until the end, despite more advanced planes like the Ju 188, Do 217 and He 177 entered the service at varying success. While in the case of the RAF, the Lancaster and Halifax became the dominant heavy bombers.
However, there is certainly more room for the late war LW bombers in the game, there is just the Ar 234 now; a rarity in real life, even if compared to the He 177.
The Ju-188 offered a little improvement over the Ju-88, the later S variants would offer similar and even superior performance, the Do-217 was redundant, and the He-177 green and always almost ready for full rate production in the next variant.
I mentioned the 88 since the main beef seems to be the overshadowing of the Lanc, such is life in AH.
-
Heh, actually fully loaded the Lanc would be slightly faster, 6kph, than the He-177 if 440kph is truly the Greifs fully loaded speed.
-
The historical footnote He177A-5 would heavily overshadow the historically major Lancaster and likely take much of the use from the B-24J and maybe the B-17G. The fact that it would only overshadow the Lancaster like that due to completely fictional usability is the core problem.
While that may be fine in HTC's opinion, we don't know as they haven't chimed in, I don't have to like it.
-
I'd bet there were more daylight sorties flown by the He 177 (on the eastern front) than the Lancaster. We don't have night. We don't have night-fighters. By your logic Karnak, the Lancaster should be removed from play.
Why hasn't the B-29 overshadowed the Lancaster?
-
I'd bet there were more daylight sorties flown by the He 177 (on the eastern front) than the Lancaster. We don't have night. We don't have night-fighters. By your logic Karnak, the Lancaster should be removed from play.
I'd be very surprised if that proved to be true. The very first Lancaster operation was during the day (they got slaughtered) and daylight operations became pretty common late in the war.
Why hasn't the B-29 overshadowed the Lancaster?
B-29 is perked and perked high.
-
B-29 is perked and perked high.
Bingo!
-
Why hasn't the B-29 overshadowed the Lancaster?
Could it be the 300 perks for a formation have something to do with it? ;)
-
Bingo!
The strong advocation in this thread is for the He177A-5 to definitely not be perked, thus that is what I am discussing with jag88.
-
Most Greifs served on the Eastern front, and they mostly flew in daylight. In the west they mostly flew maritime armed reconnaissance over the Atlantic, also in daylight. Only on the few occasions they were tasked with bombing England did they fly regularly at night.
-
The strong advocation in this thread is for the He177A-5 to definitely not be perked, thus that is what I am discussing with jag88.
Ah... How futile, since none of you get to decide that. If it's added and gets overused it will get perked.
-
Most Greifs served on the Eastern front, and they mostly flew in daylight. In the west they mostly flew maritime armed reconnaissance over the Atlantic, also in daylight. Only on the few occasions they were tasked with bombing England did they fly regularly at night.
There were far fewer He177s than Lancasters and, unless I am gravely mistaken, the rate at which a given aircraft was sortied was also lower for the He177 than the Lancaster.
Ah... How futile, since none of you get to decide that. If it's added and gets overused it will get perked.
P-51D is overused and not perked....
-
Lancasters spamcasters! This thread isn't about the lancaster, but since you insist!!!
These are clips from this article, posted a few days ago in General Discussion... go talk about lancs over there.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2159978/Brave-They-scared-witless-What-heroes-defying-fear-raid-terrifying-raid.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,345824.0.html
Sometimes he peels away out of sight, and that’s the worst moment of all. All you can do is pray that he hasn’t dived below you and is coming back underneath with his guns blazing.
The horror was waiting and not knowing, wondering if you were about to die.
If an attack came, the skipper would throw the Lanc into a steep dive. The wings go down, the tail comes hurtling up. You go up, too, and then you plunge back down as the skipper pulls back on the stick and the plane climbs steeply in the opposite direction.
The G-force clamps on your head like a ton of concrete. Your chin is pressed hard into your chest. And all the time you are still trying to fire at the enemy fighter on your tail.
WHY DO LANCS GET F3 VIEW? THEY COULDNT SEE DOWN.
And you know what happens next because you’ve looked out and seen it all before — seen other planes suddenly illuminated, then hit by shells from the ground. Balls of flame come from the engine, then from the fuselage, and you see it going down and down until it disappears into total blackness again.
FIRES IN A LANC!!!
I had three-quarters of my turret blown away by shellfire over Dortmund. After we limped home, I counted 200 holes in the aircraft.’
Why does the tail gunner not get killed so easily as in the stuka, 110, 410, ju88 AND 109s all seem to lose gunners (or pw) at first ping.
109s - THAT HAD BULLET PROOF FRAMED OUT FOR STRENGTH GLASS (like most bombers)
WHY DOES FLASHING THE LANC TAILS NOT KILL THE GUNNER? Lancs tails didnt seem to have such easy access as with other gunners from like on B-17s, B24s. Sooo if the gunner is getting killed and then another crew comes to man the gun instead... then why does the same seconds I ping/flash all over the tail, the same seconds its firing back at me!
In temperatures of minus-30, my breath froze into an icicle in front of me. I waited until it was three or four inches long before breaking it off.
NO HEATER? LOL NO PRESSURIZED HEH lanc = generic! -30degrees... to fly lanc, you have to put computer and chair into a freezer at local food store where -30!
Celcius, Farenheit, or Kelvins, this is superduper cold!
And what every man jack of them knew as they soared off into the skies was that, if your plane was hit, your chances of survival ranged from slim to zero. For every man who was able to parachute to safety (and usually into captivity, in itself not a desirable state), four didn’t make it out of their stricken planes.
This in game? ONLY 1 of 5 lancs got out when bailing order decided (poor cramped access again)! No bailing for lancs!
More than 8,000 bombers were blown out of the sky or crash-landed.
Number built (lancs from wikipedia) 7,377 Go figure.
Between 1939 and 1945, the RAF’s Bomber Command lost 55,573 airmen in battle, more than half its entire force. Its casualty rate was higher than any other section of the British armed services.
Brave? They were scared witless. What made them heroes was defying that fear, raid after terrifying raid 939 and 1945, the RAF’s Bomber Command lost 55,573 airmen in battle, more than half its entire force. Its casualty rate was higher than any other section of the British armed services.
Is this the feeling players get when they up a lancaster? And these figures are for NIGHT BOMBING, probably 90% losses if tried to bomb during day!
Very much alive one minute, in the prime of life; very dead the next, shot down, wiped out, obliterated. The courage needed was breath-taking.
This line doesnt say from any cause, this at start.
A direct hit by a shell would destroy a plane in mid-air, but most damage was caused by shrapnel slicing into the aircraft’s fuel and hydraulic lines, oil system or engines. And into its crew. (from ackack shells)
THEY SEEM A LIL BIT MORE BULLET PROOF THAT THIS IN GAME TO ME!
Both the Lancaster and the He-177 were introduced in the year 1942.
American fighters and planes of all types were in England at this time DEFENDING IT. No German fighters loitering around England airbases to vulch like USA fighters at German airbases!
In mid 1942, the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) arrived in the UK and carried out a few raids across the English Channel.
Opperation Torch November 8–16 1942 AMERICA invades North Africa. Soon later, America in Italy - another front!
Besides Russian front... uhh, winter of 1942-1943... half of the German 6th army was in Stalingrad, and lost there! Yeah sure, compare Lanc's situation to He-177's... riiight!
AND America was supplying England since pre war! 50 destroyers to England, endless supplies to England even before the war! Before USA is declared in it!
Futhermore... Lancs were night bombing since the Battle for Britain! (from wikipedia)
The first RAF raid on Berlin took place on the night of 25 August 1940; 95 aircraft were dispatched to bomb Tempelhof Airport near the centre of Berlin and Siemensstadt, of which 81 dropped their bombs in and around Berlin,[8][9] and while the damage was slight, the psychological effect on Hitler was greater.
SLIGHT DAMAGE! Lanc at night couldnt hit anything but a city if that! (lights out)
Think they were scared and doomed at night? They'd have been masacred during the day!!!
Take the F3 view away, and make the tail gunner killable... then fighter has lunch with only the bb's while the top turret cant do anything!
Don't judge the He-177 by the conditions it was in!
Mr Hitech, Mr Pyro, PLEASE tear down this wall! put He-177 in and have 'Luftcriers!' :*)***
-
The historical footnote He177A-5 would heavily overshadow the historically major Lancaster and likely take much of the use from the B-24J and maybe the B-17G. The fact that it would only overshadow the Lancaster like that due to completely fictional usability is the core problem.
While that may be fine in HTC's opinion, we don't know as they haven't chimed in, I don't have to like it.
I dont like it is not much of an argument, is it?
The Greif, and for that matter any axis bomber was going to be a footnote from 1943 onward, the circumstances simply dictated that. That being said, this game is about WW2 aircraft and not about recreating WW2, so even IF it overshadows the Lanc it is of no major consequence, if it indeed becomes too common it will be perked. But I bet the dedicated bomber pilots will stay with what they use, with the exception of the ones currently forced to use a non-German bomber of course.
The P-51D is a special case, is the iconic US fighter and this is a US based game, take it away and might kill the game...
-
You have significant misunderstandings of the situation in 1942....
Once again, cherry picking and misrepresenting don't help your argument.
-
Karnak is the biggest troll on this forum guys, I wouldnt suggest responding to him on things like this.
Tell ya what, you guys like the he177, right?
Best way to help your cause is to provide less text and more real usable info.
Heres how you do it:
1. Collect photographs detailing every part and position of the plane, inside and out. Have the official performance data scanned or in photograph form neatly arranged after the photos, as well as their corresonding loadouts/effected.
2. Post it on a single post in the wishlist forum or repost it here.
3. Don't respond to anyone but the HTC crew.
Now you have done everything you possibly could and can move on to the next plane :-)
-
I'm not sure what you were stating from that very long post other then that a Lancaster is too powerful in AH?
Last tour: Kills Deaths K/D
Lancaster III 3706 16787 0.22
Hope that helps!
-
He-117 = Perked Bomber. It will be perked out of the gate with possible adjustments later, if needed. If it doesn't come out of the gate perked, the I would have to argue as to WHY the Mossy 16 still remains perked. :headscratch:
-
He-117 = Perked Bomber. It will be perked out of the gate with possible adjustments later, if needed. If it doesn't come out of the gate perked, the I would have to argue as to WHY the Mossy 16 still remains perked. :headscratch:
Why?
It carries slightly more bombs than the Lanc.
It is slightly slower than the Lanc.
It has slightly better defensive weapons than the Lanc.
Is it a threat to the Lanc's position?
YES!
Just like any other true heavy bomber would be since the Lanc is currently the only option (non-perk).
-
I'm not sure what you were stating from that very long post other then that a Lancaster is too powerful in AH?
Last tour: Kills Deaths K/D
Lancaster III 3706 16787 0.22
Hope that helps!
Those are only GV kills right?
-
Karnak is the biggest troll on this forum guys ?Really come on not even close?, I wouldnt suggest responding to him on things like this.
1. Collect photographs detailing every part and position of the plane, inside and out. Have the official performance data scanned or in photograph form neatly arranged after the photos, as well as their corresonding loadouts/effected.
Here let me help you get started.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/HE%20177/00048691.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/HE%20177/00048701.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/HE%20177/BU221D1.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/HE%20177/BU6F1B1.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/HE%20177/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-668-7161-31A_Flugzeug_Heinkel_He_177.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/HE%20177/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-668-7162-06A_Flugzeug_Heinkel_He_177_Fahrgestell.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/HE%20177/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-668-7163-14_Flugzeug_Heinkel_He_177.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/HE%20177/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-668-7163-24A_Flugzeug_Heinkel_He_177.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/HE%20177/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-668-7163-25A_Heinkel_He_177.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/HE%20177/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-668-7164-35A_Flugzeug_Heinkel_He_177.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/HE%20177/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-676-7969A-23_Flugzeug_Heinkel_He_177.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/HE%20177/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-676-7969A-24_Flugzeug_Heinkel_He_177.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/HE%20177/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-676-7969A-25_Flugzeug_Heinkel_He_177_mit_Tarnanstrich.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/HE%20177/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-676-7970A-23_Flugzeug_Heinkel_He_177.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/HE%20177/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-676-7971A-12_Flugzeug_Heinkel_He_177_Pilot.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/HE%20177/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-676-7971A-23_Flugzeug_Heinkel_He_177_A.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/HE%20177/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-676-7972A-04_Heinkel_He_177.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/HE%20177/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-676-7972A-14_Flugzeug_Heinkel_He_177.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/HE%20177/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-676-7972A-19_Flugzeug_Heinkel_He_177_Fahrgestell.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/HE%20177/file014.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bObu-AYHag
-
That's some serious armor on that tail gunner position!
Let my final words in this thread be that Karnak is no troll. He's just opinionated and stubborn... many of us fall in that category.
-
Have to try! Post any good links you find for the flight properties, characteristics, and graphics!
Resources and stuff:
This link has bunches of diagrams for how the cockpit goes. (posted this earlier)
http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/Flugzeuge/Bomber/He%20177/cockpit/He%20177%20cockpit.html
Some characteristics of the plane:
http://www.aviastar.org/gallery/234.html
Last few paragraphs are these:
(also shows a drop-tank that is towed, has wings and landing gear on it!)
THE HEINKEL He 177 A-5 DESCRIBED
The fuselage was of stressed-skin construction, with Z-shaped stringers and formers. The nose was detachable, and had a small spherical mounting for the 7.9mm MG 81 machine-gun operated by the bomb-aimer. The nose section housed the pilot, bomb-aimer/2nd pilot/front gunner, the navigator/wireless operator/under gunner and the gunner operating the remotely-controlled dorsal guns. The central control column could be swung to the left or the right, for use by either the pilot or the second pilot. If he wished, the second pilot could collapse his seat, to enable him to use the bombsight. Beneath the navigator's seat was a toilet.
The forward section of the fuselage housed two
This He 177 of K.G.40 was captured at Toulouse by men of the French Resistance; it is pictured here shortly after its arrival at Farnborough in September 1944, still wearing French markings
fuel tanks. Beneath these was the forward bomb bay, beneath which could be fitted an external carrier for an Hs293 glider-bomb. The rear section of the fuselage housed two fuel tanks, with the second bomb bay underneath. Behind these tanks were two large carbon-dioxide cylinders which fed the engine nacelle fire extinguishers. Two large-bore jettisoning pipes led back from the fuselage fuel tanks and terminated under the elevators. When operated from the pilot's position, a cable would release the covers and uncoil a length of rubber hose on each side; the fuel could then drain out of these pipes under gravity.
The wing, which was of single-spar stressed-skin construction, comprised a centre-section and two main planes. The wingtips were detachable. Each mainplane housed an outboard landing wheel; there was a balloon cable-cutter in each leading-edge. Fowler-type flaps ran along the whole of the trailing-edge, from aileron to wing root. There were two oil radiators in each leading-edge, cooled by ram air from a duct; the supply could be regulated by hydraulically-operated flaps. The faired carriers for glider-bombs or heavy bombs were attached just outboard of the oil radiators. There was one fuel tank in each mainplane, and one on each side of the centre-section.
Each engine nacelle provided an attachment point for two single-wheel oleo legs; the outboard legs retracted outwards, the inboard ones inwards. When the main wheels were down, the undercarriage flaps closed again to seal-off the wheel housings. Like the main undercarriage legs, the tail wheel was retracted hydraulically. The time to retract the undercarriage was between 20-30 seconds - an inordinately long period.
Two Daimler Benz DB 610 "double engines" powered the He 177 A-5. Each of these comprised a pair of DB 605 units mounted side-by-side, connected by a common shaft to a four-blade, fully feathering V.D.M. metal propeller of 4.5m diameter. The propeller was fitted with metal cuffs at the blade roots, to assist engine cooling. The propellers rotated in opposite directions; the port ran anti-clockwise and the starboard ran clockwise, as seen from the front.
The He 177 carried extensive armour protection for its crew. The pilot's seat was of armour plate, 9mm thick at the back and 6mm beneath. The "chin" gun position had 7mm and 6-mm armour and bullet-proof glass; the rear ventral gun position had 9mm armour plate. A slab of 10mm thick armour plating, with a slot for the Revi gunsight, protected the gunner in the remote sighting position. In addition to all this, sections of armour plating were fitted to the fuselage around the forward crew position. The mid-upper rear gunner's position was protected from the rear by 7mm armour, which also protected the dinghy compartment; to the rear of this compartment was a large semi-circular section of armour, which extended down the top two-thirds of the fuselage. The tail gunner was protected by an 18mm thick armoured gun mounting, a bullet-proof glass screen, and 9mm armour underneath the gun. By adjusting his seat, he could either sit or lie prone, but when in the more comfortable sitting position his field of fire was limited.
-
PE8?
-
Futhermore... Lancs were night bombing since the Battle for Britain! (from wikipedia)
The first RAF raid on Berlin took place on the night of 25 August 1940; 95 aircraft were dispatched to bomb Tempelhof Airport near the centre of Berlin and Siemensstadt, of which 81 dropped their bombs in and around Berlin,[8][9] and while the damage was slight, the psychological effect on Hitler was greater.
SLIGHT DAMAGE! Lanc at night couldnt hit anything but a city if that! (lights out)
I fail to see what for example that quote above has to do with either Lancasters or Heinkel 177s, since there was not a single Lancaster in existence by that time.
The force bombing Berlin included..
Vickers Wellington Mk Is of No. 99, No. 149 Squadron ,
Handley Page Hampdens Mk Is of No. 61, No. 144 Squadrons
Armstrong Whitworth Whitley Mk Vs of No. 51 Squadron, 78 Squadron, 51 Sqn., 58 Sqn., 78 Sqn.
And number of Lancasters: 0. B-24s: 0. B-17s: 0. Ki-67s: 0. etc.
Now was there any Heinkel 177s bombing Berlin in 1940.
But to comment on the bombing accuracy of Lancaster: by 1944/1945 the night bombers were able to hit their targets at night more accurately than B17s/B24s by daylight. It took time to learn the proper tactics for the job. And indeed RAF did.
g
-
If info is what you want...
(http://i376.photobucket.com/albums/oo208/jag888/h2_zps1fbed2fd.png)
(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/85637d1236108177-he177-speed-climb-he177a3-data.jpg)
(http://i376.photobucket.com/albums/oo208/jag888/He-177Rust_zps84868efe.png)
(http://i376.photobucket.com/albums/oo208/jag888/Gunangles.jpg)
(http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/He177A_load_range.jpg)
(http://i376.photobucket.com/albums/oo208/jag888/Bomload.jpg)
(http://i376.photobucket.com/albums/oo208/jag888/He-177load_zpscb4a9aed.png)
(http://i376.photobucket.com/albums/oo208/jag888/He-177Rust_zps5490286b.png)
-
Guys, if possible, translate this stuff, the idea is to help and make less work for the HTC staff to add the plane... looks like awesome info!
-
Guys, if possible, translate this stuff, the idea is to help and make less work for the HTC staff to add the plane... looks like awesome info!
Why? Its literally just about the last thing we need. The Golly-geen Boulton Paul Defiant is about as high on the priority list.
-
That's some serious armor on that tail gunner position!
Let my final words in this thread be that Karnak is no troll. He's just opinionated and stubborn... many of us fall in that category.
+1 to this... Karnak may be obnoxious, but he's a cool cat at the same time.
-
+1 to this... Karnak may be obnoxious, but he's a cool cat at the same time.
Well put, I agree.
-
Why? Its literally just about the last thing we need. The Golly-geen Boulton Paul Defiant is about as high on the priority list.
You are right, the game is full of true heavy bombers that can carry more than 4t of bombs, how silly of us to ask for a... second one? Or for a viable German bomber for that matter?
Yeah... we are asking too much... still waiting on those sources btw...
-
You are right, the game is full of true heavy bombers that can carry more than 4t of bombs, how silly of us to ask for a... second one? Or for a viable German bomber for that matter?
Yeah... we are asking too much... still waiting on those sources btw...
Yes, because a Do 217 packing 6600lbs at 340mph is in no way viable or useful.
We obviously need a German B-26 with roughly 1.5 times the defensive firepower that can be configured to carry Lancaster - sized loads at medium speds, or B-24 loads at high speeds.
Oh, and in point of fact, we currently have 3 heavy bombers. And both Ju 188 and Do 217 could carry more ordnance than the B-17.
-
I took luftwaffe bombers for a spin:
Ju-88: (formation) Much fun, lil slow, still fun! I shot down a same guy in fighters twice. Bombed up the enemy strats too. Very successful flight.
Findings: As with any bomber, dont attack from behind. For this bomber, any attack from the sides bottom or top, would seem indefensible. He attacked from the only '15 degree? arc' area that I could fire all three guns at him, twice!
His shame; his very bad! My luck!
I would request making the front gun able to function as front firing fixed gun as it is now, but also 'manable' with pivot ability.
Ar-234: Very neat, very fun, very fast! I wound up at 18k trying to slow down. I was unable to slow down enough in time, and unable to stablize speed enough for a good calibration. It transfered to a large range on the ground, ,my 3 x 500 kg's bombs... I'm lucky I hit anything at all. I need to learn this thing.
Findings: Best survivability plane in game probably. Great for avoiding fights. Problem: the fight is half the fun!
He-177 is a BIG bomber, lots of medium and large guns to defend itself from any direction. Four engines and mass for survivability. Lots of bombs to smash stuff too!
It is also a PRIDE thing, this is the Great German Luftwaffe's 'Flagship' that has teeth, it can fight, and has mass to exchange damage! And we Luftwobbles, Luftwaffles and Luftwhiners want it, when not in a fighter, this is the game's best fun for us!
Jageschwader's want a 'toe to toe ruff n tuff' Bombgeschwader too! Give allieds the nightmares that b24's give us luftwaffes!
Adding a Do-217 before a Do-17 doesn't make much sense to me. Now that we have the Ju-88, He-111, we kinda need the Do-17 also for the complete historic set... but for PRIDE and FUN we need the He-177!!!
Luftwaffe's everywhere, post "add please" and salute!
Add please! :salute
Also, if find a good info link, post it!
-
Yes, because a Do 217 packing 6600lbs at 340mph is in no way viable or useful.
We obviously need a German B-26 with roughly 1.5 times the defensive firepower that can be configured to carry Lancaster - sized loads at medium speds, or B-24 loads at high speeds.
Oh, and in point of fact, we currently have 3 heavy bombers. And both Ju 188 and Do 217 could carry more ordnance than the B-17.
340mph? Lovely numbers, found a source yet or are you still making up numbers? Btw, have fun fending off fighters with mostly light MGs and a couple mediums, a He-177 would have a far better chance to survive and a greater effect. And since you didnt get it, the viable comment was regarding the Ju-88 which is the bomber currently in game.
You mean, carry Lancaster loads at Lancaster speeds and B-24 loads at slightly faster than B-24 speeds? Because that is what it could do, and I did provide sources for my numbers while you still dont...
True heavy bombers, true, 4t loads and up and not bombers that can barely carry a medium bomber load or slightly higher, or that carry more crew than bombs. Btw the Ju-188 carries exactly the same bombload as a Ju-88, 3t, thats it, and in the same fashion, mostly external thus hurting its performance.
-
I took luftwaffe bombers for a spin:
Ju-88: (formation) Much fun, lil slow, still fun! I shot down a same guy in fighters twice. Bombed up the enemy strats too. Very successful flight.
Findings: As with any bomber, dont attack from behind. For this bomber, any attack from the sides bottom or top, would seem indefensible. He attacked from the only '15 degree? arc' area that I could fire all three guns at him, twice!
His shame; his very bad! My luck!
My best in the Ju88 happened in AH1 before there were formations. I bagged a P-51D, Fw190, F4U-1C and an N1K2-J, though the N1K2-J also finished me off.
I would request making the front gun able to function as front firing fixed gun as it is now, but also 'manable' with pivot ability.
I don't think it had that capability.
Ar-234: Very neat, very fun, very fast! I wound up at 18k trying to slow down. I was unable to slow down enough in time, and unable to stablize speed enough for a good calibration. It transfered to a large range on the ground, ,my 3 x 500 kg's bombs... I'm lucky I hit anything at all. I need to learn this thing.
It takes a long distance for the fast bombers, Ar234B, B-29 and Mosquito Mk XVI to settle down so your attack has to be planned with that in mind. Generally I give at least a two, and preferably more, sector run once reaching the altitude I plan to bomb from before I am over the target.
Findings: Best survivability plane in game probably. Great for avoiding fights. Problem: the fight is half the fun!
The Ar234B and Mosquito Mk XVI offer a different kind of fun than the fight. With those two you play cat and mouse with the enemy, but both of them also have the ability to go almost anywhere regardless of what the enemy does.
-
340mph? Lovely numbers, found a source yet or are you still making up numbers? Btw, have fun fending off fighters with mostly light MGs and a couple mediums, a He-177 would have a far better chance to survive and a greater effect. And since you didnt get it, the viable comment was regarding the Ju-88 which is the bomber currently in game.
You mean, carry Lancaster loads at Lancaster speeds and B-24 loads at slightly faster than B-24 speeds? Because that is what it could do, and I did provide sources for my numbers while you still dont...
True heavy bombers, true, 4t loads and up and not bombers that can barely carry a medium bomber load or slightly higher, or that carry more crew than bombs. Btw the Ju-188 carries exactly the same bombload as a Ju-88, 3t, thats it, and in the same fashion, mostly external thus hurting its performance.
I mean lanc loads at medium speeds, or B-24 loads at high speed. I've put 6 years into the game, the first two as a bomber junkie. Basically, I know what I'm talking about. 300mph+ is high speeds for a bomber at anything but very high altitude. 340 is damn near untouchable, rendering any lack of defense a negligible weakness, unless you are flying it.
I can assume from your idiotic rants about speed being unimportant and firepower being paramount, you are neither smart or a good shot.
Who says heavies have to carry 4t+? Following that, the B-17 is a medium. Who cares if it has 2 engines if it carries 8.8k of ord, and is just as survivable? I certainly don't.
The fact is that the Do 217 is the best choice right now, followed by a 188. The He 177 would be unrepresentative, useless in scenarios, and dominant in the MAs. You quite clearly just want it because you want a German B-24 that can turn into a lanc and keep the firepower.
http://www.airpages.ru/eng/lw/do217.shtml (http://www.airpages.ru/eng/lw/do217.shtml)
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/aircraft/bomber/dornier-do-217.asp (http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/aircraft/bomber/dornier-do-217.asp)
My go-to source for GVs, and very accurate data regarding vehicles. Have seen nothing to indicate factual errors.
http://ww2db.com/aircraft_spec.php?aircraft_model_id=23 (http://ww2db.com/aircraft_spec.php?aircraft_model_id=23)
I had some book sources too, but they're likely still in some box from our move. If you insist on being dumb, I'll go figure them out when I find the time.
-
yes,we need a late war axis bomber to compete with the b-29. he-177,would be best, heck ,even the do-217 would be good.
-
yes,we need a late war axis bomber to compete with the b-29. he-177,would be best, heck ,even the do-217 would be good.
There was no Axis bomber to compete with the B-29. There was only one Allied bomber that could compete with the B-29, the plane ordered as backup in case the B-29 failed, the B-32.
-
The historical footnote He177A-5 would heavily overshadow the historically major Lancaster and likely take much of the use from the B-24J and maybe the B-17G. The fact that it would only overshadow the Lancaster like that due to completely fictional usability is the core problem.
How is that a problem when looking at the MA? Well, you don't have to like it but I for one don't really see it as a problem. There are already several planes in the game which see vast amount of usage compared to what they saw during the war. For example, Ki-84, which you advocated to be added to the game, had really bad engine problems throughout its service in the war and sees heavier use in the LWMA than many work horse fighters of the WWII but you seem to be ok with that?
Personally, I think a late war German bomber would be a welcome addition although not nearly as crucial as the likes of Pe-2 and Ki-43.
Ju-88S: My personal favorite. It was the true Schnellbomber which Ju-88 was supposed to be from the start before RLM issued a host of weight adding requirements for the design which slowed it down.
Ju-188A: Beautiful bomber, also my favorite. While the 20mm in the turret is nice, having it in the tail like the He-177 is a far bigger deterrent.
He-177A-5: Would perform well in the LWMA which IMO is kind of the point of a late war German bomber as late war German bomber campaigns don't have much Event-potential IMO.
Do-217: Effective bomber but the one I'd like to see the least of these four as it has the looks that only a mother can love. :D
-
http://www.airpages.ru/eng/lw/do217.shtml (http://www.airpages.ru/eng/lw/do217.shtml)
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/aircraft/bomber/dornier-do-217.asp (http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/aircraft/bomber/dornier-do-217.asp)
My go-to source for GVs, and very accurate data regarding vehicles. Have seen nothing to indicate factual errors.
http://ww2db.com/aircraft_spec.php?aircraft_model_id=23 (http://ww2db.com/aircraft_spec.php?aircraft_model_id=23)
I had some book sources too, but they're likely still in some box from our move. If you insist on being dumb, I'll go figure them out when I find the time.
Cough - BMW 801 was a 14-cylinder engine, the Do 217 never got the 801G-2 with 1700PS, even the K was powered by the 801L with 1560PS. Major errors in "good" sources ?!?
550 km/h are not that impossible for a Do 217 but only for a 217M after dropping the bombs. 217E was at ~515 km/h, 217K might have been a tad faster from improved aerodymics.
-
I mean lanc loads at medium speeds, or B-24 loads at high speed. I've put 6 years into the game, the first two as a bomber junkie. Basically, I know what I'm talking about. 300mph+ is high speeds for a bomber at anything but very high altitude. 340 is damn near untouchable, rendering any lack of defense a negligible weakness, unless you are flying it.
Wow, did I touch a nerve?
Thats is what you get when you ask people top provide sources I guess...
I can assume from your idiotic rants about speed being unimportant and firepower being paramount, you are neither smart or a good shot.
Awww, I did hurt your feelings... I said a loaded heavy is going to be slow anyways, and you need some defensive deterrent otherwise people will chase you for 2 sectors in order to get a free kill on a badly defended bomber, it is a different matter if they have to chase you and then fight you as well. I have to be a good shot, I have BB guns as defense in the 88.
Who says heavies have to carry 4t+? Following that, the B-17 is a medium. Who cares if it has 2 engines if it carries 8.8k of ord, and is just as survivable? I certainly don't.
Offensive load is one way to classify them, and since early WW2 there were several mediums that could carry 3t loads, it was nothing extraordinary, that is why I expect 4t+ from a heavy and you had them from early on with the Manchester/Lanc, Greif, Pe-8, and Halifax.
The fact is that the Do 217 is the best choice right now, followed by a 188. The He 177 would be unrepresentative, useless in scenarios, and dominant in the MAs. You quite clearly just want it because you want a German B-24 that can turn into a lanc and keep the firepower.
Oh? You know want I want? You are very funny in addition to psychic... or maybe psychotic. I want a He-177 for what it was, a much maligned heavy bomber that did not get a chance to prove itself, it is an interesting design that had great potential but was hampered by unbelievable incompetence. It is ugly as hell, but it has grown on me since I started to dig up info on it years ago.
http://www.airpages.ru/eng/lw/do217.shtml (http://www.airpages.ru/eng/lw/do217.shtml)
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/aircraft/bomber/dornier-do-217.asp (http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/aircraft/bomber/dornier-do-217.asp)
My go-to source for GVs, and very accurate data regarding vehicles. Have seen nothing to indicate factual errors.
http://ww2db.com/aircraft_spec.php?aircraft_model_id=23 (http://ww2db.com/aircraft_spec.php?aircraft_model_id=23)
I had some book sources too, but they're likely still in some box from our move. If you insist on being dumb, I'll go figure them out when I find the time.
Lol, finally you quote something!
Sadly you go and get it from some website that quotes those quick reference enciclopedias that are usually full of errors or lack any form of context.
What good is speed without height and weight?
Griehl, in a book ABOUT the Do-217 indicates 510-520kph for the 217K1 at 12,7t, that is with barely a 3t payload and 4t below max weight and therefore without any external loads, from there speed will only go down as you add weight and external stores. Nowarra indicates 528 kph for the M1, which matched Brown's test flight of the type. Price records the same 528kph indicating that these are RLM values which are different form Dorniers which I believe is an interesting hint about the source for some of the wild numbers you can find, the same thing happens with the He-177, Heinkel claims 550kph at Gm, but RLM numbers put it at 490kph Gm, and I always rather take the user numbers rather than the seller's, they tend to be more honest or at least more representative of actual operational use.
Or maybe is just the top speed when light, as always, context is everything.
The M1 may be faster when light AFTER dropping its bombload, but loaded it would be nowhere near what you so ignorantly claim.
I would love to see the M1 in game, limited to internal stores it should be a difficult target to intercept and gives hope to an eventual Fritz-X perk option, but I rather get the more powerful Greif first.
-
Ju-88S: My personal favorite. It was the true Schnellbomber which Ju-88 was supposed to be from the start before RLM issued a host of weight adding requirements for the design which slowed it down.
Who wouldnt want 27 mins of WEP for 610kph? :rock
Shame about the load thou...
-
For example, Ki-84, which you advocated to be added to the game, had really bad engine problems throughout its service in the war and sees heavier use in the LWMA than many work horse fighters of the WWII but you seem to be ok with that?
I'd have agreed with that position had the Ki-84 had any chance of supplanting the P-51, Spitfire, Bf109 and others. The He177A-5 has a good shot at supplanting the Lancaster at the least, and potentially the B-24J and maybe even the B-17G as well.
On the other hand, if Jag88 is correct in his assessment of how the He177A-5 would be in AH, then the Do217 or Ju188 would actually be superior in AH.
-
I would love to have it give it a medium perk and add all the things and options it was capable of. Also lets remember this is a 4 engine bomber 2 engines are coupled into 1 prop?
With 98% or more of all the planes and tanks spending their time in the MA what difference does it make what options are on the planes or tanks?
You have 51's on 51, tanks shooting planes with their main guns, lancastukas, 163 low alt fighter rockets, 262 racing through furbals.... Why does it matter what options are on the planes the more the more fun......... Simple!
In the events arenas you simple turn the options off . Like in the case of the BF-109F4 for the events the gondolas or the bomb could of simply been turned off by the scenario planner! Their was no reason to remove them for MA use...Period!
Adding options in the MA is good and more fun for all of us if you don't want to use them ....Don't!
Any way if I was Pyro I would not do the He-177 if I did not get to, at least, do the Hs293!
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/He177_zps2e71a29a.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/He177-hs293-1_zps8f3ff43a.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/He177-5-HS-293_zpsd6e289f6.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/He177-5-HS-293TakeOff_zpsd237c166.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/Hs293MissleMethodofAttackjpg_zpsc205bc8b.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/He177Rear2xmk103_zpsbe5aa8c3.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/He177Rear2xmk103Door_zps3a4b03a6.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/He177Rear4xmk131Inside_zpsea5264bd.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/He177Rear4xmg131_zps2223c7e4.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/He177SC1800-rdy_zpsd3ddcb2f.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/He177Torp_zpsa258c54f.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/He177Torp2_zps331830c5.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/He177Torp3_zps3e1e5659.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/He177TorpLaunch_zps351a06a2.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/He177FritzX_zpsbc96fd81.jpg)
:cheers:
-
I would love to have it give it a medium perk and add all the things and options it was capable of. Also lets remember this is a 4 engine bomber 2 engines are coupled into 1 prop?
With 98% or more of all the planes and tanks spending their time in the MA what difference does it make what options are on the planes or tanks?
You have 51's on 51, tanks shooting planes with their main guns, lancastukas, 163 low alt fighter rockets, 262 racing through furbals.... Why does it matter what options are on the planes the more the more fun......... Simple!
In the events arenas you simple turn the options off . Like in the case of the BF-109F4 for the events the gondolas or the bomb could of simply been turned off by the scenario planner! Their was no reason to remove them for MA use...Period!
Adding options in the MA is good and more fun for all of us if you don't want to use them ....Don't!
Any way if I was Pyro I would not do the He-177 if I did not get to, at least, do the Hs293!
Well said! Except for the perk part. ;)
Although I am partial to the Fritz-X, BB buster and all.
Technically yes, but they were made into a single engine the DB610, they could not be disassembled AFAIK.
On the other hand, if Jag88 is correct in his assessment of how the He177A-5 would be in AH, then the Do217 or Ju188 would actually be superior in AH.
Dont believe me, read the RLM numbers I posted and make up your own mind. The 217 and 188 wont be faster with external loads as the data from Rechlin showed, and that is the sole advantage they could possibly have on the 177.
-
Well said! Except for the perk part. ;)
Although I am partial to the Fritz-X, BB buster and all.
Technically yes, but they were made into a single engine the DB610, they could not be disassembled AFAIK.
Dont believe me, read the RLM numbers I posted and make up your own mind. The 217 and 188 wont be faster with external loads as the data from Rechlin showed, and that is the sole advantage they could possibly have on the 177.
Yes it would be fun to try and glide the fritz x into a SB or the Hs293 into a carrier.
Technically they were DB606 a&b ?
-
Yes it would be fun to try and glide the fritz x into a SB or the Hs293 into a carrier.
Technically they were DB606 a&b ?
For the A3 yes (although some did receive 610s), for the 177A5 it was a DB610s (A & B), made of 2 DB605s (the DB606s used DB601s).
-
So everyone agrees it should be added! :x
-
Cough - BMW 801 was a 14-cylinder engine, the Do 217 never got the 801G-2 with 1700PS, even the K was powered by the 801L with 1560PS. Major errors in "good" sources ?!?
550 km/h are not that impossible for a Do 217 but only for a 217M after dropping the bombs. 217E was at ~515 km/h, 217K might have been a tad faster from improved aerodymics.
Specifically which source is that referring to? I'm not home and my phone is a pain to juggle multiple windows on.
And thanks, I'll add an annotation in my sources folder.
Btw, the 217 carried most of its ordnance internally. Wouldn't affect speed so much as acceleration and climb. Numbers are likely reflective of a clean 217M at ~17k.
-
Wow, did I touch a nerve?
Thats is what you get when you ask people top provide sources I guess...
a nerve? No. But I am getting tired of your ignorance as to what makes a good bomber in AH, and related request for a bomber that would be any where between dominant and games breaking... Especially when its completely unrepresentative of real life.
Awww, I did hurt your feelings... I said a loaded heavy is going to be slow anyways, and you need some defensive deterrent otherwise people will chase you for 2 sectors in order to get a free kill on a badly defended bomber, it is a different matter if they have to chase you and then fight you as well. I have to be a good shot, I have BB guns as defense in the 88.
go fly bombers for two years and come back with some perspective.
The B-17 isn't so annoying because of it's guns. It's annoying because it soaks up damage better than any other bomber in the game, and is sufficiently fast to necessitate something like a K4 to intercept it when it's already at altitude. That means you typically have limited ammo, limited fuel, and STILL have limited time.
Offensive load is one way to classify them, and since early WW2 there were several mediums that could carry 3t loads, it was nothing extraordinary, that is why I expect 4t+ from a heavy and you had them from early on with the Manchester/Lanc, Greif, Pe-8, and Halifax.
3t is heavy - bomber ordnance. A medium can carry 8.8k lbs.
The Ju88 isn't representative of most mediums, nor are many german bombers, since they didn't use heavies and thus designed their mediums accordingly.
In the MAs 217 > B-17 in the vast majority of cases.
Most sorties would benefit more from speed instead of more guns.
Oh? You know want I want? You are very funny in addition to psychic... or maybe psychotic. I want a He-177 for what it was, a much maligned heavy bomber that did not get a chance to prove itself, it is an interesting design that had great potential but was hampered by unbelievable incompetence. It is ugly as hell, but it has grown on me since I started to dig up info on it years ago.
Regardless of how you spin it, you want something that can compete with the B-17 and B-24 at their own game. Really no other bombers could do that, regardless of who built them.
As for your Wunderwaffe 177, it's engines were terribly unreliable, to the point that the combat ready aircraft were the rarities. The same thing happened to the king tiger, and I'm not sure adding it was a good thing. In fact I'm almost certain it has hurt the GV game.
Lol, finally you quote something!
Sadly you go and get it from some website that quotes those quick reference enciclopedias that are usually full of errors or lack any form of context.
What good is speed without height and weight?
As I said, my hard copy books are in storage unless they're just gone.
Also, weight doesn't affect speed to any great degree. Its drag and thrust that affect speed for the most part. Look at the P-51 vs the Spitfire. Same engine, completely different performance, and the slower one is actually lighter. Ta-152 is faster than the Tempest despite being slightly heavier IIRC, and having a weaker engine.
Ju-88A vs Ju88S.
-
Pics of the c-pit?
-
From page 3:
http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/Flugzeuge/Bomber/He%20177/cockpit/He%20177%20cockpit.html
-
a nerve? No. But I am getting tired of your ignorance as to what makes a good bomber in AH, and related request for a bomber that would be any where between dominant and games breaking... Especially when its completely unrepresentative of real life.
go fly bombers for two years and come back with some perspective.
It is hilarious that you, the guy with no sources to back up his nonsense speaks about ignorance, its just too ironic!
Please, do point to the game breaking specs of the He-177 I posted a primary source that details speed, load and height, all the data needed to provide a clear picture of an aircraft's capabilities, not data from a website claiming a half cooked encyclopedia that provides no context for the speeds it claims.
I have flown the Ju-88 a lot and love it in spite of its weaknesses, your rank pulling is funny considering that you have a very skewed idea regarding aircraft performance.
The B-17 isn't so annoying because of it's guns. It's annoying because it soaks up damage better than any other bomber in the game, and is sufficiently fast to necessitate something like a K4 to intercept it when it's already at altitude. That means you typically have limited ammo, limited fuel, and STILL have limited time.
Yeah sure, all that and the fact that any competent gunner will make you pay dearly unless you perform a well executed slashing attack.
3t is heavy - bomber ordnance. A medium can carry 8.8k lbs.
The Ju88 isn't representative of most mediums, nor are many german bombers, since they didn't use heavies and thus designed their mediums accordingly.
Since 1940 the 217E could carry 3t, the Whitley could do 3t as well and the He-111 did 2,5t. The LW did know what a heavy was, they were clear about it when ordering the He-177.
In the MAs 217 > B-17 in the vast majority of cases.
Most sorties would benefit more from speed instead of more guns.
Regardless of how you spin it, you want something that can compete with the B-17 and B-24 at their own game. Really no other bombers could do that, regardless of who built them.
Lol, you still insist on that moronic idea, I understand your need of a straw man when you have failed to provide any solid arguments and much less data or facts but it is cute to see you actually try it...
As for your Wunderwaffe 177, it's engines were terribly unreliable, to the point that the combat ready aircraft were the rarities. The same thing happened to the king tiger, and I'm not sure adding it was a good thing. In fact I'm almost certain it has hurt the GV game.
Go grab Griehl's book on the 177, it is clear in describing the aircraft many faults and the also many actions undertaken to fix them, by mid 1944 the aircraft had solved most of them and could operate reliably showing 80 and 90% readiness in the older Gruppe. You still have a cereal box knowledge of the aircraft and it shows, it goes well with your cereal box mentality by refusing to look at the data itself.
As I said, my hard copy books are in storage unless they're just gone.
Also, weight doesn't affect speed to any great degree. Its drag and thrust that affect speed for the most part. Look at the P-51 vs the Spitfire. Same engine, completely different performance, and the slower one is actually lighter. Ta-152 is faster than the Tempest despite being slightly heavier IIRC, and having a weaker engine.
Ju-88A vs Ju88S.
Drag has a greater effect which is why it was funny to see you claim absurd speeds for bombers that had to use external loads or the racks to carry them, that being said weight also places a sizable burden on a bomber's speed and is not as negligible as you might want us to believe.
Please do point out which A variant used Ju-88S engines so the comparison can make sense?
You are really trying to compare the difference caused in performance form fighters to a bomb encumbered bomber? Really? You really do not want my help to expose yourself, do you?
-
Specifications (He 177 A-5/R2)
Data from Heinkel He 177-277-274. Shrewsbury, England: Airlife Publishing.
General characteristics
Crew: 6
Length: 22 m (72 ft 2 in)
Wingspan: 31.44 m (103 ft 1¾ in)
Height: 6.67 m (21 ft 10 in)
Wing area: 100.00 m² (1,076.40 ft²)
Empty weight: 16,800 kg (37,038 lb)
Loaded weight: 32,000 kg (70,548 lb)
Power-plant: 2 × Daimler-Benz DB 610 24-cylinder liquid-cooled inline piston engines, 2,900 PS (2,133 kW) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 565 km/h (351 mph) at 6,000 (19,685 ft)
Stall speed: 135 km/h (84 mph)
Combat radius: 1,540 km (957 mi) (One way with bomb-load, can hit targets in that radius and return home)
Ferry range: 5,600 km (3,480 mi)
Service ceiling: 8,000 m (26,246 ft)
Rate of climb: 190 m/min (623 ft/min)
Wing loading: 303.9 kg/m² (62.247 lb/ft²)
Armament
Guns: **1 × 7.92 mm MG 81 machine gun in "fishbowl" nose glazing
1 × 20 mm MG 151 cannon in forward ventral Bola gondola position
1 × 13 mm MG 131 machine gun in rear ventral Bola gondola position
2 × 13 mm MG 131 machine guns in FDL 131Z remotely operated forward dorsal turret, full 360° traverse
1 × 13 mm MG 131 machine gun in manned Hydraulische Drehlafette DL 131I aft dorsal turret
1 × 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon in tail position
Bombs: Up to 6,000 kg (13,227 lb) of ordnance internally/7,200 kg (15,873 lb) externally or up to 3 Fritz X or Henschel Hs 293 PGMs (w/FuG 203 Kehl MCLOS transmitter installed)
48 × 50 kg (110 lb) bombs (2,400 kg/5,291 lb total)
1 × 2,500 kg (5,511 lb) bomb (2,500 kg/5,511 lb total)
12 × 250 kg (551 lb) bombs (3,000 kg/6,613 lb total)
6 × 500 kg (1,102 lb) bombs (3,000 kg/6,613 lb total)
2 × 1,800 kg (3,968 lb) bombs (3,600 kg/7,936 lb total)
2 × 1,800 kg (3,968 lb) bombs + 2 × LMA III mines (4,600 kg/10,141 lb total)
10 × 500 kg (1,102 lb) bombs (5,000 kg/11,023 lb total)
2 × 1,000 kg (2,204 lb) bombs + 2 × 1,800 kg (3,968 lb) bombs (5,600 kg/12,345 lb total)
6 × 1,000 kg (2,204 lb) bombs (6,000 kg/13,227 lb total)
2 × FX 1400 Fritz X + 1 × FX 1400 Fritz X under the wings and fuselage (w/FuG 203 Kehl MCLOS transmitter installed)
2 × Hs 293 or 294 + 1 × Hs 293 or 294 under the wings and fuselage (w/FuG 203 Kehl MCLOS transmitter installed)
2 × 500 kg (1,102 lb) bombs internally + 2 × Hs 293 under the wings (w/FuG 203 Kehl MCLOS transmitter installed)
2 × LT 50 torpedoes under the wing
-
Specifications (He 177 A-5/R2)
Data from Heinkel He 177-277-274. Shrewsbury, England: Airlife Publishing.
General characteristics
Crew: 6
Length: 22 m (72 ft 2 in)
Wingspan: 31.44 m (103 ft 1¾ in)
Height: 6.67 m (21 ft 10 in)
Wing area: 100.00 m² (1,076.40 ft²)
Empty weight: 16,800 kg (37,038 lb)
Loaded weight: 32,000 kg (70,548 lb)
Power-plant: 2 × Daimler-Benz DB 610 24-cylinder liquid-cooled inline piston engines, 2,900 PS (2,133 kW) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 565 km/h (351 mph) at 6,000 (19,685 ft)
Stall speed: 135 km/h (84 mph)
Combat radius: 1,540 km (957 mi) (One way with bomb-load, can hit targets in that radius and return home)
Ferry range: 5,600 km (3,480 mi)
Service ceiling: 8,000 m (26,246 ft)
Rate of climb: 190 m/min (623 ft/min)
Wing loading: 303.9 kg/m² (62.247 lb/ft²)
Armament
Guns: **1 × 7.92 mm MG 81 machine gun in "fishbowl" nose glazing
1 × 20 mm MG 151 cannon in forward ventral Bola gondola position
1 × 13 mm MG 131 machine gun in rear ventral Bola gondola position
2 × 13 mm MG 131 machine guns in FDL 131Z remotely operated forward dorsal turret, full 360° traverse
1 × 13 mm MG 131 machine gun in manned Hydraulische Drehlafette DL 131I aft dorsal turret
1 × 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon in tail position
Bombs: Up to 6,000 kg (13,227 lb) of ordnance internally/7,200 kg (15,873 lb) externally or up to 3 Fritz X or Henschel Hs 293 PGMs (w/FuG 203 Kehl MCLOS transmitter installed)
48 × 50 kg (110 lb) bombs (2,400 kg/5,291 lb total)
1 × 2,500 kg (5,511 lb) bomb (2,500 kg/5,511 lb total)
12 × 250 kg (551 lb) bombs (3,000 kg/6,613 lb total)
6 × 500 kg (1,102 lb) bombs (3,000 kg/6,613 lb total)
2 × 1,800 kg (3,968 lb) bombs (3,600 kg/7,936 lb total)
2 × 1,800 kg (3,968 lb) bombs + 2 × LMA III mines (4,600 kg/10,141 lb total)
10 × 500 kg (1,102 lb) bombs (5,000 kg/11,023 lb total)
2 × 1,000 kg (2,204 lb) bombs + 2 × 1,800 kg (3,968 lb) bombs (5,600 kg/12,345 lb total)
6 × 1,000 kg (2,204 lb) bombs (6,000 kg/13,227 lb total)
2 × FX 1400 Fritz X + 1 × FX 1400 Fritz X under the wings and fuselage (w/FuG 203 Kehl MCLOS transmitter installed)
2 × Hs 293 or 294 + 1 × Hs 293 or 294 under the wings and fuselage (w/FuG 203 Kehl MCLOS transmitter installed)
2 × 500 kg (1,102 lb) bombs internally + 2 × Hs 293 under the wings (w/FuG 203 Kehl MCLOS transmitter installed)
2 × LT 50 torpedoes under the wing
This is from wiki and that is a bad source...
It claims that data is from Griehl's book but on the quoted pp 223 the max speed is 440kph which is likely what you can expect at full load (32t), IIRC in the book that speed is mentioned as the speed used in inclined flight during Steinbock, not horizontal flight. Those 440kph (also on Nowarra) at full correlate nicely with the 490kph at medium weight (26t) from the RLM tables.
On the other hand the loads are the initial ones from the 177A-0 Manual quoted in Griehl, but Nowarra mentions different loads including external ones, such as 10xSC500, 6xSC1000, 2xSC2500 and 48xSC70 which suggests these are late war loads.
-
It is hilarious that you, the guy with no sources to back up his nonsense speaks about ignorance, its just too ironic!
Please, do point to the game breaking specs of the He-177 I posted a primary source that details speed, load and height, all the data needed to provide a clear picture of an aircraft's capabilities, not data from a website claiming a half cooked encyclopedia that provides no context for the speeds it claims.
I have flown the Ju-88 a lot and love it in spite of its weaknesses, your rank pulling is funny considering that you have a very skewed idea regarding aircraft performance.
I have sources, I even showed you my electronic sources for the Do 217. As I said, my hard-copy sources are in storage from when I moved. If I find the time, I'll go look for them, but I'm not going to put besting some twit on the internet very high on the priority list, given that I'm gone from 8AM to 7PM most days.
The fact that it can carry lancaster loads at lancaster speeds, with defenses more like what the USAAF had on its heavies means that it will largely replace the lancaster. The fact that its faster after drop just makes it more appealing. That it can carry B-24 sized loads faster than a B-24 and with arguably comparable armament means a lot fewer B-24's and B-17's.
Given you think speed largely irrelevent, its no supprise you think my ideas are skewed. You litterally lack a fundamental understanding of what I'm saying, it seems. If thats not stupidity, its sure as hell ignorance.
Seeing only one bomber as the primary platform isn't good for the game, especially when its completely contradictory to what actually happened in real life.
Yeah sure, all that and the fact that any competent gunner will make you pay dearly unless you perform a well executed slashing attack.
Well yeah, even a half-competent gunner will shread your aircraft with a Ju-88 if you make your attacks like an idiot.
But if you yourself are an even half-competent fighter pilot, a B-17 will have to have an actively good gunner to keep you from knocking them down.
Since 1940 the 217E could carry 3t, the Whitley could do 3t as well and the He-111 did 2,5t. The LW did know what a heavy was, they were clear about it when ordering the He-177.
Never said they didn't know what it was, only that their bombers weren't representative of true typical mediums.
LW didn't have a need for a long-ranged bomber capable of carrying a large load at high-speeds with heavy defenses. Thats not how they opperated. In large measure, their airforce was tactical, rather than strategic. They could easly make due with a shorter-ranged medium carrying a medium-heavy load at respectable, if not stellar, speeds. They really and truely thought the USSR would collapse at their first blows, and thus didn't plan and prepare for a protracted conflict across such vast distances.
Lol, you still insist on that moronic idea, I understand your need of a straw man when you have failed to provide any solid arguments and much less data or facts but it is cute to see you actually try it...
You lack a basic understanding of either what constitues a typical sortie in the MA, or what goes into survivability.
Most bomber sorties are less than 250 miles in length, and are made against tactical targets such as ord, hangers, or the towns. In this case, warning tends to be very brief (assuming the radar is up), giving just enough time for a K4, climbing at better than 4500ft/min at the deck and never dropping below 4000ft/min untill above 15,000ft, to intercept and shoot down a set of B-24s flying at 17000ft.
The B-24 flys at around 280mph at 17k at full speed, and likely a bit slower due to having the doors open for calibration of the bomb sight. If the Do 217 were to use the same tactic, it would have released ord by the time the K4 made it to 12k, and possibly left the radar ring by the time the K4 made it to 17k.
Essentially, what you fail to grasp is that not having to fight makes for higher survivability than having better tools to fight an enemy who still has a decided advantage.
Go grab Griehl's book on the 177, it is clear in describing the aircraft many faults and the also many actions undertaken to fix them, by mid 1944 the aircraft had solved most of them and could operate reliably showing 80 and 90% readiness in the older Gruppe. You still have a cereal box knowledge of the aircraft and it shows, it goes well with your cereal box mentality by refusing to look at the data itself.
Thats with only around 10 months of the war left, for an aircraft that had been in service since 1942. Considering the LW had pretty much disintegrated by Oct. or Nov. of 1944, thats really only a few months of any major action, if it even saw any major action, given the lack of targets.
I'm not saying some 177's weren't decent, I'm saying that the majority weren't, and a Do 217 or Ju 188 would serve us better overall, Special Events (which are a big thing for a lot of people) included.
Bottom line, the 177 is pretty low on the priority list, given that its historical significance is negligible, it would be unrepresentative in the game, and use in special events is essentially zero.
Drag has a greater effect which is why it was funny to see you claim absurd speeds for bombers that had to use external loads or the racks to carry them, that being said weight also places a sizable burden on a bomber's speed and is not as negligible as you might want us to believe.
The Do 217 could carry 6600lbs of internal ordnance, more than a B-17.
Now I'm not a first-hand expert at this, but I'm fairly certian internal ordnance doesn't result in increased drag.... Just saying.
Full weight? Do 217M could probably make around 310-320mph, which is still very fast, and enough to make it much more survivable.
Please do point out which A variant used Ju-88S engines so the comparison can make sense?
You miss the point, its not a weight issue, its an issue of drag and engine power.
You are really trying to compare the difference caused in performance form fighters to a bomb encumbered bomber? Really? You really do not want my help to expose yourself, do you?
Any situation where the airframe is streamlined to increase speed, or more horsepower is applied to overcome drag is entirely relevent to the current discussion. You're simply implying that the laws of physics don't act universally across all class of aircraft in an attempt to discredit me.
You're carping over weight, when it is almost entirely irrelevent to top speed. Any example of a heavier aircraft going faster with less power illustrates this.
-
The historical footnote He177A-5 would heavily overshadow the historically major Lancaster and likely take much of the use from the B-24J and maybe the B-17G. The fact that it would only overshadow the Lancaster like that due to completely fictional usability is the core problem.
While that may be fine in HTC's opinion, we don't know as they haven't chimed in, I don't have to like it.
Why is it a problem? In the MA it makes no difference in the Scenario they use what they want and set the settings they want.
So who cares what the folks fly 98% of the time in the MA? So what if they fly the He177 more than the B-24... Big deal!
This is a stupid argument you make about just about everything. 98% of the time the planes and vehicles are used in the MA!
-
This is from wiki and that is a bad source...
It claims that data is from Griehl's book but on the quoted pp 223 the max speed is 440kph which is likely what you can expect at full load (32t), IIRC in the book that speed is mentioned as the speed used in inclined flight during Steinbock, not horizontal flight. Those 440kph (also on Nowarra) at full correlate nicely with the 490kph at medium weight (26t) from the RLM tables.
On the other hand the loads are the initial ones from the 177A-0 Manual quoted in Griehl, but Nowarra mentions different loads including external ones, such as 10xSC500, 6xSC1000, 2xSC2500 and 48xSC70 which suggests these are late war loads.
I didn't take anything from wiki ...that's a good way to get me going in the other direction. :aok I posted it mainly for the loadout if there were a few more loadouts great! I am really not interested in getting in a beef with you about the speed cause I don't care.
My only real interest in the He177 is the Hs293 and possible Fritz X. Otherwise it's just another BUFF to me.
I own these 2 books and 3 others on the He-177 and 4 handbooks
Heinkel He177 "Grief" by Manferd Griehl
Heinkel He 177,277, 274 by Manferd Griehl & Joachim Dressel
Better back up,
-
Why is it a problem? In the MA it makes no difference in the Scenario they use what they want and set the settings they want.
Games are about choice and right now there is a real choice for heavy bombers is between bombers with different strengths and weaknesses, some better in some situations than others. The He177A-5, depending on how it is modeled, has the potential to reduce the choices in the MA. Obviously not in the absolute sense where you now have four heavy bombers to choose from rather than three, but rather by making one choice obviously superior to other choices. The He177A-5 would almost always be a superior choice to the Lancaster regardless of how the He177A-5 is modeled. It would also almost certainly be a superior choice to the B-24J in almost all circumstances. The B-17G would probably still be the better choice for heavily defended areas, but given the trade off in payload it might not even be better then.
-
Games are about choice and right now there is a real choice for heavy bombers is between bombers with different strengths and weaknesses, some better in some situations than others. The He177A-5, depending on how it is modeled, has the potential to reduce the choices in the MA. Obviously not in the absolute sense where you now have four heavy bombers to choose from rather than three, but rather by making one choice obviously superior to other choices. The He177A-5 would almost always be a superior choice to the Lancaster regardless of how the He177A-5 is modeled. It would also almost certainly be a superior choice to the B-24J in almost all circumstances. The B-17G would probably still be the better choice for heavily defended areas, but given the trade off in payload it might not even be better then.
Again that is your view I say it's hogwash and a terrible argument why don't you let the players decide what they like to fly in the MA, which has no history evolved at all. It makes no difference at all what people fly in the MA.
Its not going to reduce the choice its going to add to the choices... Period!
The idea is to ADD not restrict player choices.
-
Again that is your view I say it's hogwash and a terrible argument why don't you let the players decide what they like to fly in the MA, which has no history evolved at all. It makes no difference at all what people fly in the MA.
Its not going to reduce the choice its going to add to the choices... Period!
The idea is to ADD not restrict player choices.
I didn't say anything about history. I spoke of choice. If I offer you a choice of four beads and tell you I'll give you $20 if you pick the blue bead, $7 if you take the red bead, $3 if you take the yellow bead and $1 if you take the green bead, have I given you a real choice? The He177A-5 has the potential to do that to the free heavy bomber stable in AH. Sure, you can pick the Lancaster if you want, but it is always the poorer choice. Effectively, for anybody who had a choice (not die hard Lancaster fans) the choice of the Lancaster has been changed from "I take a Lanc when I want a heavy payload or if I won't face much opposition." to "I don't take the Lanc because the He177 is better." That would be fine if it was just the Lanc as you'd still have a choice between three heavies. The problem with the He177 is that it almost certainly applies to the B-24J almost as much as it applies to the Lancaster. Even if the B-17G is unaffected, the choice has been reduced from three to two.
-
I didn't say anything about history. I spoke of choice. If I offer you a choice of four beads and tell you I'll give you $20 if you pick the blue bead, $7 if you take the red bead, $3 if you take the yellow bead and $1 if you take the green bead, have I given you a real choice? The He177A-5 has the potential to do that to the free heavy bomber stable in AH. Sure, you can pick the Lancaster if you want, but it is always the poorer choice. Effectively, for anybody who had a choice (not die hard Lancaster fans) the choice of the Lancaster has been changed from "I take a Lanc when I want a heavy payload or if I won't face much opposition." to "I don't take the Lanc because the He177 is better." That would be fine if it was just the Lanc as you'd still have a choice between three heavies. The problem with the He177 is that it almost certainly applies to the B-24J almost as much as it applies to the Lancaster. Even if the B-17G is unaffected, the choice has been reduced from three to two.
Again its the MA, I have said give a perk price.... You don't worry about it, more choices for the player are better... there is no reason not to add this plane and give Luft fans the largest bomber the germans made...and give the 109F4 its gondies and bomb back as if you don't wish to use them in the events arena ...Don't.
Your argument is over. This is the same argument you make with the Mustang1, P-51 and P-51A.....waaa it's going to upset the apple cart :cry
It won't make a bit of difference in the MA, where the players spend 98-100% of their time, and if it does HTC can find the right perk for it. It was made in the same numbers as the F4uC, P-47M, I bet that plane alone would pull memberships.
-
Again its the MA, I have said give a perk price.... You don't worry about it, more choices for the player are better... there is no reason not to add this plane and give Luft fans the largest bomber the germans made...and give the 109F4 its gondies and bomb back as if you don't wish to use them in the events arena ...Don't.
In case you hadn't noticed, there are strenuous arguments in this thread against the idea that the He177A-5 should be perked.
Your argument is over. This is the same argument you make with the Mustang1, P-51 and P-51A.....waaa it's going to upset the apple cart :cry
It won't make a bit of difference in the MA, where the players spend 98-100% of their time, and if it does HTC can find the right perk for it. It was made in the same numbers as the F4uC, P-47M, I bet that plane alone would pull memberships.
It is not the same argument. A P-51A sounds like a great idea. A P-51A with a perked loadout for the quad 20mm cannons sounds like a good idea too.
-
In case you hadn't noticed, there are strenuous arguments in this thread against the idea that the He177A-5 should be perked.
It is not the same argument. A P-51A sounds like a great idea. A P-51A with a perked loadout for the quad 20mm cannons sounds like a good idea too.
I've noticed
Your Idea requires a perked ordinance system... we don't have that... in order to add the P-51 we need the plane :aok
The 51's could use reworking any way :lol most famous plane in the game/war and there are 2 versions.
:cheers:
-
Your Idea requires a perked ordinance system... we don't have that... in order to add the P-51 we need the plane :aok
No, it only requires it for the 20mm option. For fans of the Allison engined P-51 there is no problem at all. The only problem is for people who don't give a damn about the Allison engined Mustang and just want quad 20mm cannons. It is no different than the people requesting quad 20mm cannons on the Spitfire.
The 51's could use reworking any way :lol most famous plane in the game/war and there are 2 versions.
:cheers:
Comes from being a mid/late war plane. Add the P-51A and it is done.
Also, as a note, there are seven versions of the most famous plane in the game, the Spitfire.
-
No, it only requires it for the 20mm option. For fans of the Allison engined P-51 there is no problem at all. The only problem is for people who don't give a damn about the Allison engined Mustang and just want quad 20mm cannons. It is no different than the people requesting quad 20mm cannons on the Spitfire.
Comes from being a mid/late war plane. Add the P-51A and it is done.
Also, as a note, there are seven versions of the most famous plane in the game, the Spitfire.
So why cant the Players have a SpitVc? what difference does it make in the MA?
No,,, we could make 5 versions of the 51 no problem.
-
So why cant the Players have a SpitVc? what difference does it make in the MA?
Why do you only care for power and not at all for historical flavor? Put in a quad cannon Spitfire and it puts those who choose to fly the historical aircraft at a disadvantage.
No,,, we could make 5 versions of the 51 no problem.
And we could do 12 Spitfires no problem, but in my opinion the Spitfires will be done once the Seafire Mk III is added.
-
Why do you only care for power and not at all for historical flavor? Put in a quad cannon Spitfire and it puts those who choose to fly the historical aircraft at a disadvantage.
And we could do 12 Spitfires no problem, but in my opinion the Spitfires will be done once the Seafire Mk III is added.
Perk it
I don't care how many spitfires you add the more the merrier... that's my point.
Again what difference does it make in the MA? <---you cant get around this.. and this is where 98-100% of player time is spent.
-
Again what difference does it make in the MA? <---you cant get around this.. and this is where 98-100% of player time is spent.
Because it puts me at a disadvantage for not flying fantasy Crimson Skies bullhocky and because I like WWII aircraft for their history. Just because you don't care for anything other than getting ever more powerful things doesn't mean that you are the only person the game should cater to.
-
Because it puts me at a disadvantage for not flying fantasy Crimson Skies bullhocky and because I like WWII aircraft for their history. Just because you don't care for anything other than getting ever more powerful things doesn't mean that you are the only person the game should cater to.
Just because you think it shouldn't be here the rest of the player base should suffer?
I have over 4-500 books on WWII and it's planes and some vehicles... all because I like the power :rofl
You know you are FOS ... why do you want to pin your drivel on me ...the history was they were there in squadron strength, they fought in the war that's the history .......not your convoluted hierarchy of history. One is not better than the other.
Answer this... what difference does it make in the MA?
You can not,
Your, Krusty's, Tiff's... Mine to a minimal extent .. etc ....position/thinking on what should and shouldn't be in the game has nothing to do with where the majority of the player time is spent!
That's not bad but most of all the fast sexy rides are here. Filling Gaps? Sure that's great for the events.. I'm down.... but their are other ways to look at things <Old Money> <New Money>.
This is another subject for sure.
Should we stay within certain criteria... yes ....used in the war, squadron strength, sufficient numbers :uhoh...right?
Not ... that part of the world didn't mater, that plane insignificant, that time period didn't matter, that plane was a dud...etc!
I bet if you ask the folks that flew them in the war they would tell you different.
If the plane adds another part of the world or another facet of the war to the game.... that's not good?
-
I already answered you.
You want Crimson Skies/World of Tanks so long as there are scenarios. I don't have access to scenarios and I don't want the MA full of never fought or fought extremely rare aircraft. You can say "Use the AvA", but that is a copout answer as the AvA is controlled by extremely biased players who create setups with grievous errors.
Just because you don't think it makes any difference to the MA doesn't mean you are correct and your opinion is not fact.
-
I already answered you.
You want Crimson Skies/World of Tanks so long as there are scenarios. I don't have access to scenarios and I don't want the MA full of never fought or fought extremely rare aircraft. You can say "Use the AvA", but that is a copout answer as the AvA is controlled by extremely biased players who create setups with grievous errors.
Just because you don't think it makes any difference to the MA doesn't mean you are correct and your opinion is not fact.
"I don't want" is the jest of it... there are many others besides you in case you didn't notice :aok
I have all ready addressed this in an earlier post.... but you all ready have crimson skys in the MA bud 51vs51, spit vs spit, 163 fighter rockets etc...
You don't have access to scenarios? Why?... but you are the 1 advocating perfect match up's in planes for event and such? But you dont fly them?
talk about some major bullhocky!
run along son,
-
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/He-177LoadOut2_zpsb35662b8.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/He-177LoadOut_zps2bd5309f.jpg)
-
"I don't want" is the jest of it... there are many others besides you in case you didn't notice :aok
The same is true of you, something you seem oblivious to as you persistently speak in language that implies you are speaking for the community.
I have all ready addressed this in an earlier post.... but you all ready have crimson skys in the MA bud 51vs51, spit vs spit, 163 fighter rockets etc...
It is certainly at a point along that spectrum. That I don't wish it to go further towards Crimson Skies is not an endorsement of its current state as being historically accurate.
You don't have access to scenarios? Why?
Work.
run along son
You've not earned the right to be patronizing to me.
-
The same is true of you, something you seem oblivious to as you persistently speak in language that implies you are speaking for the community.
It is certainly at a point along that spectrum. That I don't wish it to go further towards Crimson Skies is not an endorsement of its current state as being historically accurate.
Work.
You've not earned the right to be patronizing to me.
My language dose not restrict it adds to the enjoyment ...yours restricts.
I do work.. much harder than you I'm sure. I have to miss many events I would like to attend but I don't hold it on the MA players
Neither have you earned the right ...you are not better than me. You opinion is not better than mine. You don't know more on the subject.
Bloviator,
-
My language dose not restrict it adds to the enjoyment ...yours restricts.
Regardless of the inaccuracy of your claim, that has nothing to do with what I said. I don't claim to speak for the community whereas you, even in this quoted bit of text, do.
I do work.. much harder than you I'm sure. I have to miss many events I would like to attend but I don't hold it on the MA players
I made no claim to the relative volume, difficulty or schedules of our work. I simply stated "Work" as an explanation as to why I cannot attend scenario events as my schedule overlaps with those events. Why did you take it as a competition?
Neither have you earned the right ...you are not better than me. You opinion is not better than mine. You don't know more on the subject.
Unlike you I have not presumed to patronize. I have responded to you as your posting history warranted.
-
Im sure that every luftwaffe player in the game would like to have the He-177 in the game.
Lancaster: 7,377 built, 7crew, 3 gunner stations. <--- weak, no wonder night bombers, and only able to hit a city!
B-17s: 12,731 built. 10crew, 6 gunner stations. Daylight bomber! <-- war winner!
B-24s: 18,482 built. 11crew, 6 gunner stations. Daylight bomber! <-- war winner
He-177A-5: 826 built(?) 6crew?, 7 gunner stations? All A-5's were bug free, and the A-3/R2s had most of their bugs worked out - as much as any plane in the war. (1169 total for he-177s).
Lets see, without these 30,000 USA bombers bombing Germany, maybe the He-177 would have seen higher production numbers and more use? And this says nothing about all the USA medium bombers, USA fighters, USA attack fighters, USA supply planes, ships, etc etc etc!
Please guys, please stop spamming this thread up with bickering, IGNOR if required!
Megalodon, AND OTHERS, POST LINKS PLEASE, NOT JUST PICTURES!!!
HTC needs the links for more complete information! The link might be able to just copy/paste into Google's translator for EASIER TRANSLATION than just these pictures!!!
-
I have sources, I even showed you my electronic sources for the Do 217. As I said, my hard-copy sources are in storage from when I moved. If I find the time, I'll go look for them, but I'm not going to put besting some twit on the internet very high on the priority list, given that I'm gone from 8AM to 7PM most days.
Lol, all you have showed is that you have is a big mouth and little to back it up, a couple websites with no context for the info nor credible sources makes the speeds therein meaningless. Keep running your mouth, thats all you have.
The fact that it can carry lancaster loads at lancaster speeds, with defenses more like what the USAAF had on its heavies means that it will largely replace the lancaster.
Big whoop.
The fact that its faster after drop just makes it more appealing.
How much faster? Where are your sources? Do you even have a number? Or just more BS as usual?
That it can carry B-24 sized loads faster than a B-24 and with arguably comparable armament means a lot fewer B-24's and B-17's.
Comparable on top only, significantly worse on front, back and under... how is comparable again? Yeah, dedicated US bomber pilots will certainly jump at the chance of piloting an obscure German bomber, right... just like they did with the Lanc, right?
Given you think speed largely irrelevent, its no supprise you think my ideas are skewed. You litterally lack a fundamental understanding of what I'm saying, it seems. If thats not stupidity, its sure as hell ignorance.
Oh, I understand your crappy arguments, they are just ridiculous.
Seeing only one bomber as the primary platform isn't good for the game, especially when its completely contradictory to what actually happened in real life.
Well yeah, even a half-competent gunner will shread your aircraft with a Ju-88 if you make your attacks like an idiot.
But if you yourself are an even half-competent fighter pilot, a B-17 will have to have an actively good gunner to keep you from knocking them down.
Contradictory to real life? You must really hate those Me-163, Ki-84, Nikkis, F4U4 and all those other rare aircraft, right? Lets have only newcomers pilot late war German aircraft, only they would be able to adequately reproduce the lack of training of the 1944-45 LW so we can be truthful to RL!
Btw, when did the He-177 become the single bomber in the game? Oh, it doesnt even exist? SO you are just making crap up? Go figure! But you are right, AH has a history of being unable to deal with aircraft that become too dominant... wait...
Never said they didn't know what it was, only that their bombers weren't representative of true typical mediums.
The British also had a 3t medium, they had one even before the LW, the rest were playing catching up but by 1940 they were the state of the art.
LW didn't have a need for a long-ranged bomber capable of carrying a large load at high-speeds with heavy defenses. Thats not how they opperated. In large measure, their airforce was tactical, rather than strategic. They could easly make due with a shorter-ranged medium carrying a medium-heavy load at respectable, if not stellar, speeds. They really and truely thought the USSR would collapse at their first blows, and thus didn't plan and prepare for a protracted conflict across such vast distances.
Oh really? Allow me to introduce you to the Ural bomber program, google it since you are clearly clueless and have no idea of what it is and what type of bomber designs it spawned... no, the "Ural" bit is not about urinals, its a clue about the project's purpose and requirements, I dont want to give anything away but it has to do with geography, you might want to look east... no, the other east...
You lack a basic understanding of either what constitues a typical sortie in the MA, or what goes into survivability.
Most bomber sorties are less than 250 miles in length, and are made against tactical targets such as ord, hangers, or the towns. In this case, warning tends to be very brief (assuming the radar is up), giving just enough time for a K4, climbing at better than 4500ft/min at the deck and never dropping below 4000ft/min untill above 15,000ft, to intercept and shoot down a set of B-24s flying at 17000ft.
Essentially, what you fail to grasp is that not having to fight makes for higher survivability than having better tools to fight an enemy who still has a decided advantage.
What you fail to understand is that if your weapons are not a good deterrence, they will chase you until they get you.
Thats with only around 10 months of the war left, for an aircraft that had been in service since 1942. Considering the LW had pretty much disintegrated by Oct. or Nov. of 1944, thats really only a few months of any major action, if it even saw any major action, given the lack of targets.
You don seem to see the contradiction in your post, in service since 1942, but since they saw no major action according to you they are not worthy of inclusion? Want me to list the in-game aircraft produced in lesser quantities and which saw even less combat? They dropped guided bombs and sank ships in the Atlantic and Mediterranean, bombed London during Steinbock, supplied Stalingrad (or at least tried), they were the main weapon used against the ships supplying the Normandy beacheads sinking 68000t and damaging 35000t of shipping at great cost, frequently interdicted Soviet rail hubs and many were spent in desperate low level attacks against Russian tanks when Army Group Center collapsed in 1944.
Yeah, they clearly did nothing...
I'm not saying some 177's weren't decent, I'm saying that the majority weren't, and a Do 217 or Ju 188 would serve us better overall, Special Events (which are a big thing for a lot of people) included.
Thats were you are wrong, read Griehl, with the A5 it was no longer an aircraft thing, it was a training and logistic issue that handicapped its initial deployment. A very telling example is II/KG40 that had a 80% serviceability rate in January 1944, and that was with A3, they were simply the first guys to get them and knew the aircraft's faults and were able to operate them successfully, the green guys with 15 hours on the type and no understanding of the aircraft's kinks were hastily thrown into battle without adequate ground support and suffered badly.
With the A5, II/KG100 reported 90% availability in September 1944.
There is a reason why the Do-217 was killed, what it could do the Greif could do better, that is why it died in 1943 as 177 production started to pick up and replaced it as the missile carrier.
Bottom line, the 177 is pretty low on the priority list, given that its historical significance is negligible, it would be unrepresentative in the game, and use in special events is essentially zero.
Lol, your ignorance is funny.
The Do 217 could carry 6600lbs of internal ordnance, more than a B-17.
And? Surprised it beat what it basically was a MPA? Depending on source you will see 2,5 to 3t internal, want a better load? Get performance killing wing racks. Or better yet, get a Greif and load double that.
Now I'm not a first-hand expert at this, but I'm fairly certian internal ordnance doesn't result in increased drag.... Just saying.
Now this is just cute!
Just saying? After all your mouth running and grand standing... just sayin?
May it be that you got around to reading about induced drag and the effect weight has on it?
May it be that you, the grand bomber ace with 2 years under his belt suddenly remembered that once liberated from its internal bombload, specially a large load such as the Lanc's, the bomber usually gains speed?
Lol, from "you are an ignorant" to "just sayin man"!!!! :rofl
Full weight? Do 217M could probably make around 310-320mph, which is still very fast, and enough to make it much more survivable.
Ah! S0 we are reducing our expectation now... Maybe. Sources? No? Go figure... Still would love to have it.
You miss the point, its not a weight issue, its an issue of drag and engine power.
Any situation where the airframe is streamlined to increase speed, or more horsepower is applied to overcome drag is entirely relevent to the current discussion. You're simply implying that the laws of physics don't act universally across all class of aircraft in an attempt to discredit me.
You're carping over weight, when it is almost entirely irrelevent to top speed. Any example of a heavier aircraft going faster with less power illustrates this.
Induced drag begs to disagree.
You are using Ju-88s A and S so indicate differences in shape, which is true, very different shapes... but your analogy turns a little silly when you fail to mention that there are a few hundred hp of difference between he As and S engines. Can we appreciate the virtues of streamlining when there is a massive difference in Hp... can we?
But I digress, you are only trying to weasel your way out of a dumb comparison when you tried to create a parallel between fighters and bombers while ignoring induced drag which tends to be a lot more important form bombers due to... the bombs and them dropping away mid-flight... odd you didnt know that, you being a super duper 2 year bomber ace!
Man, you barely need any help to discredit yourself.
-
I didn't take anything from wiki ...that's a good way to get me going in the other direction. :aok I posted it mainly for the loadout if there were a few more loadouts great! I am really not interested in getting in a beef with you about the speed cause I don't care.
My only real interest in the He177 is the Hs293 and possible Fritz X. Otherwise it's just another BUFF to me.
I own these 2 books and 3 others on the He-177 and 4 handbooks
Heinkel He177 "Grief" by Manferd Griehl
Heinkel He 177,277, 274 by Manferd Griehl & Joachim Dressel
Better back up,
Great, no problem, just wanted to clarify things because ppl either freak out or turn fanboys when they see that speed, a speed that really is a misquote as I explained earlier.
I would love to see the guided bombs as a perked loadout and restricted to a single aircraft weapon unavailable to formations. Otherwise... poor CVs...
Altough puffy ack is bound to make life miserable to the launching aircraft...
-
Im sure that every luftwaffe player in the game would like to have the He-177 in the game.
Lancaster: 7,377 built, 7crew, 3 gunner stations. <--- weak, no wonder night bombers, and only able to hit a city!
You are aware that by 1944 Lancasters were more accurate at night than B-17s were by day, yes?
No, your bias blinds you.
B-17s: 12,731 built. 10crew, 6 gunner stations. Daylight bomber! <-- war winner!
B-24s: 18,482 built. 11crew, 6 gunner stations. Daylight bomber! <-- war winner
He-177A-5: 826 built(?) 6crew?, 7 gunner stations? All A-5's were bug free, and the A-3/R2s had most of their bugs worked out - as much as any plane in the war. (1169 total for he-177s).
Lets see, without these 30,000 USA bombers bombing Germany, maybe the He-177 would have seen higher production numbers and more use? And this says nothing about all the USA medium bombers, USA fighters, USA attack fighters, USA supply planes, ships, etc etc etc!
Hmmm, more bias. No mention of Halifax production either. (Or Wellington and Mosquito production, both of which also were used as strategic bombers).
It is fine to tout the He177A-5, but don't lie about other things to puff it up.
-
6,178 halifax made? same weak defensive guns... two stations, neither can see down... meat and potatoes if not flying at night time.
Wellingtons (11,461 built) NOT FOUR ENGINE! Same weak defenses as all british bombers.
Mosquito (7,781 built) NOT FOUR ENGINE! only forward firing guns? lol
Ju-88 (15,183 built) of normal version.
He-111 (6,508 built)
HE-177 SAW COMBAT, MASS PRODUCED, BUG FREE, FILLS A MAJOR GAP IN LUFTWAFFE...
meets all requirements to be put in game except that its better than lancasters so so allies going to cry!
-
All A-5's were bug free,
That is a long reach right there.
-
That is a long reach right there.
Indeed.
-
6,178 halifax made? same weak defensive guns... two stations, neither can see down... meat and potatoes if not flying at night time.
Yes, at night. Here is your "Only able to hit a city." accuracy:
Results of RAF Bomber Command's night raid on the V weapon research facility:
(http://www.rafbombercommand.com/pics/archive/two_c_twoa_large.jpg)
Wellingtons (11,461 built) NOT FOUR ENGINE! Same weak defenses as all british bombers.
Yes, and unlike the Do17, Do217, He111, Ju88 and Ju188, it had the range to be a strategic bomber.
Mosquito (7,781 built) NOT FOUData Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????=~ =~ 276697661MltCpy2.10 FILL FILLed Sector; ST500DM002-9YN14 (CC4H) S1D5GMZY Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????/>
You're delusional if you think it was "bug free". I doubt there was any bug free aircraft in WWII. Probably never any aircraft at any time anywhere to be honest.
As to the quip about the Lancaster. I couldn't care less that the Lancaster is an Allied plane. As I have explained, what I am looking at, is the effect on player choice. In my opinion the He177A-5, modeled bug free as it would be in AH, has the potential to change the heavy bomber choice for players other than fans of a particular bomber from a choice between three to a choice between two or no choice at all. Meaningful choices make games fun. Less choice means less engaging the player.
Lets mention another Axis "heavy bomber", the H8K2 'Emily'. How would it fit in? Well, it would likely be tougher than even the B-17G and is defended by five Type 99 Model 1 20mm cannons, just like the tail gun on the G4M1, as well as a few rifle caliber machine guns. Its range would be insane, capable of 24 hours of flight (12 in AH). Climb rate starts at about 1800ft/min, which is very fast for a four engined aircraft. Top speed is about 290mph. However, its payload is only eight 250kg bombs or two torpedoes and it is a flying boat. Also, just over 100 of them were built, though they saw very heavy use from their introduction in 1942 until the end of the war.
Having established its specs, would it be a fourth choice or would it eliminate other contenders? I think it would be a fourth choice as its bomb load is lighter, but it climbs faster and has strong defenses. The flying boat aspect would be the biggest wild card as it would probably launch from ports only.
-
Nice pics, Did only one bomber do that from 30,000ft pitch black sky with clouds too? HAHA
How many bombers raid was this? What alt were they dropped from? What speed? Any fighter resistance this day? What year?
Source? Post the whole link please! So we can read the whole article! Cherry picking a cherry picked article? Double cherry picking! HAHA
FROM PAGE#6 of this repeating thread! We're already passed the 'bug part'... thread still getting spammed 'bugged' though.
from wikipedia.com
First paragraph
Luftwaffe aircrew nicknamed it the Luftwaffenfeuerzeug (Luftwaffe's lighter) or the "Flaming Coffin" due to the serious engine problems on initial versions of the aircraft. When these problems were later rectified, the type was successful, but it could not be deployed in large numbers due to Germany's deteriorating situation in the war."
From further down at 'engines' part:
Starting with the He 177 A-3/R2, a modified engine nacelle with a new "power system", the Daimler-Benz DB 610, each of which consisted of a pair of Daimler-Benz DB 605s set up to work as one as the DB 606 had been, was used to eliminate the tendency for engine fires. With the introduction of the DB 610 came several improvements including the relocation of the engine oil tank, the lengthening of the engine mountings by 20 cm (8 in), the complete redesign of the exhaust system which also facilitated the installation of exhaust dampers for night missions, and the setting of a power limitation on the engines which resulted in greater reliability. These modifications, supposedly numbering 56 of both major and minor varieties, were successful as far as eliminating engine fires were concerned, but other minor problems with the transfer gearbox between the two component engines of each "power system" and their shared propeller remained."
Logic can conclude that by the A-5, it had even fewer, if any bugs... "bug free" is an acceptable phrase describing the He-177A-5.
First 130 production He-177A-1's had problems OOOHHHKAAAY! <-- pressed into service due to USA and USSR fully in the war!
Second 170 production He-177A-3's had most problems fixed!
Main Production series 826 built: He-177A-5, 'acceptable' to say "bug free."
-
I have dozens of such photos, mostly from 1944. Daylight raids by Lancasters became more common in 1945 for obvious reasons.
As I stated, by 1944 the RAF bombers were more accurate than the USAAF bombers, despite the fact that the RAF operated primarily at night. None of the heavies (B-17s, B-24s, Halifaxes or Lancasters) could match the Mosquito bombers, but the accuracy was far, far better than just hitting a city. The reasons being improvements in target identification through things like target marking and terrain mapping radar called H2S. RAF bombers also had the advantage that each aircraft was responsible for its own aiming rather than dropping when the leader dropped his load.
You're obviously a Luftwaffe fan. Do yourself a favor though and read up on the operations of their USAAF and RAF opponents to gain a better perspective on the air war. The cat and mouse game between RAF Bomber Command and the Luftwaffe is particularly interesting in how fast it pushed technology. The difference in the RAF's effectiveness in 1941 compared to 1944 is staggering. You should find much of it appealing as the Luftwaffe had some great triumphs over the RAF, so much so that for a time Bomber Command's loss rate at night was higher than the USAAF's during the day.
-
Im sure that every luftwaffe player in the game would like to have the He-177 in the game.
Most Luftwaffe players (not those who sometimes fly a German aircraft, or even know the 109 or 190 well, but true Luftdweebs) actively wish it doesn't get added any time soon.
HTC needs the links for more complete information! The link might be able to just copy/paste into Google's translator for EASIER TRANSLATION than just these pictures!!!
I refuse to translate anything or post links, and I urge any others who speak German to do the same
-
Interesting to see what kind of histlity my small request resulted in..
And although I followed this thread, I just dont get it why someone claims the He177 would make Lancaster and B17 obsolete. There are enough options in Ah to model the plane not as OP as Karnak and Tank-Ace would see it.
I think it would suit very well between the lancaster in payload and B17 in defense. Oh and even giving it a small Perk would deny its mass use in MA. HTC could still lower its Damage modell to somehow simulate the reliability.
I would rather say adding the He177 would improve the diversity in AH, especially as I did mostly flew LW-Planes except for bomber runs as there isnt any viable LW-bomber in AH IMO.
-
Interesting to see what kind of histlity my small request resulted in..
And although I followed this thread, I just dont get it why someone claims the He177 would make Lancaster and B17 obsolete. There are enough options in Ah to model the plane not as OP as Karnak and Tank-Ace would see it.
I think it would suit very well between the lancaster in payload and B17 in defense. Oh and even giving it a small Perk would deny its mass use in MA. HTC could still lower its Damage modell to somehow simulate the reliability.
I would rather say adding the He177 would improve the diversity in AH, especially as I did mostly flew LW-Planes except for bomber runs as there isnt any viable LW-bomber in AH IMO.
It is all due to a basic misunderstanding of the aircraft, most people simply have no idea of its capabilities and believe some inaccurate wikipedia numbers and freak out thinking it will be OP and hate it thinking it might kill their favorite aircraft, or get exited and want it... because they think it would be OP. They are all equally wrong.
It was an advanced concept, very strong airframe due to a ill-conceived concept, temperamental engines, maintenance intensive that suffered from teething problems worsened by the LW training and logistical debacle. It had the potential to become a truly great bomber, its 4x DB603A engined version did 450kph close to the deck and would have been a decent counterpart, not for the Lanc, but for the B-29. However, since the LW insisted on the coupled engines instead of going 4 singles when it should have (just as the RAF did with the Manchester), it deprived itself of what could have been a far more significant and effective bomber.
Would it have changed history? Not a chance.
Would it fill a blatant hole in the LW lineup in the game? Most certainly. It is puzzling the went for a scenario aircraft rather than a viable MA aircraft given that the existing one is already more of a scenario plane than a MA one.
Modelling wise, the engines could not be overstressed, meaning that you had to avoid long periods at max power or sudden increases in power. That should be easy to model.
-
jag88,
I assure you, it has little chance of killing my favorite aircraft.
It stands a very good chance, on the performance numbers you have given, of changing the effective choice of heavy bombers from between three aircraft to between two or one aircraft.
I would not expect the engine issues to be modeled any differently than the B-29's engine issues. A bit more vulnerable to damage, but otherwise able to run at 100% MIL without limit.
-
jag88,
I assure you, it has little chance of killing my favorite aircraft.
It stands a very good chance, on the performance numbers you have given, of changing the effective choice of heavy bombers from between three aircraft to between two or one aircraft.
I would not expect the engine issues to be modeled any differently than the B-29's engine issues. A bit more vulnerable to damage, but otherwise able to run at 100% MIL without limit.
If it does become too dominant after the initial novelty period it should be perked. If it overshadows the Lanc it should rate an "Oh well".
I disagree on the engine issue, they had to be managed and that shouldnt be too hard to replicate, just make it accelerate at a slightly slower rate than it would be otherwise possible to illustrate normal operational procedures. And maybe shorten boost duration.
Although I believe than in general bombers should be limited to top cruise when taken in formation, but I can see how that would be a bitter pill to take for most.
-
If it just killed the Lancaster that would be fine, probably. If its defenses were significantly effective then we might have an issue of offense being too potent given a bomber with Lancaster sized loads but well defended.
Given the B-24J's vulnerability I strongly suspect it would also heavily impact the B-24J's use, perhaps killing it as thoroughly as the Lancaster. The last issue is if the B-17G's durability and defensive firepower is enough better to ever justify taking it at the cost of ~7,000lbs per plane of bombs. Compared to the weak Lancaster defensive guns the answer is yes, but compared to the much better defenses of the He177 it is a lot less clear.
-
Maybe, but the He-177 would be even more vulnerable than the B-24, the fuselage is strong and should be resilient, but hit one of the vulnerable an large engine nacelles and 50% of the power is gone and it cant fly on that when over 22t, barely 5t over its empty weight.
But it will be popular as any viable LW bomber would be since right now there is no such plane in the MA forcing some people to use non-LW materiel. If its gonna kill something, is the Ju-88, save for torpedo attacks.
Being this a US game I dont see US bombers taking THAT much of a hit given the mythos built around them.
-
Most Luftwaffe players (not those who sometimes fly a German aircraft, or even know the 109 or 190 well, but true Luftdweebs) actively wish it doesn't get added any time soon.
I must have missed that poll. I would like to see it added. I understand Karnak's concerns, but that is part of what the perk system is for. If the plane begins to be to dominant, perk it. Or, if it appears its performance is too far above others in its class, make it a perk from the beginning. There's no good reason not to include it in the plane set as it meets all of the other requirements.
Regards,
Hammer
-
Obviously any fan of a given bomber will simply use that bomber. Our discussion is about the players, I suspect the bulk of them, who simply pick what they think is the best tool for the job. As evidence I submit the Lancaster itself. It is the most used bomber in the game despite its weak guns and without that many commonwealth players its popularity cannot be much associated with Lancaster fans. What holds it back is not just that fans of the B-17G and B-24J will use those over it, but also that its defenses are too weak for many situations. The He177 would significantly redress that problem.
As to durability, shoot a B-24J in the wing root a little and it goes up in flames every time so I don't think the He177A-5 will be more vulnerable really.
-
I must have missed that poll. I would like to see it added. I understand Karnak's concerns, but that is part of what the perk system is for. If the plane begins to be to dominant, perk it. Or, if it appears its performance is too far above others in its class, make it a perk from the beginning. There's no good reason not to include it in the plane set as it meets all of the other requirements.
Regards,
Hammer
With all due respect, I don't view you as a Luft pilot, in that case. History and immersion are why I fly the German Iron. Thus I abhor the idea of the 177 overshadowing anything we currently have in the game.
-
With all due respect, I don't view you as a Luft pilot, in that case. History and immersion are why I fly the German Iron. Thus I abhor the idea of the 177 overshadowing anything we currently have in the game.
That's kind of funny. I've been flying nothing but German iron since 2008 and flew it most of the time for several years before that. I've been in a squad that flies nothing but German iron since 2008. Heck, I even flew German most of the time back in Air Warrior.
As is often pointed out, the MA is a tough place to find anything close to historical accuracy and it's tough to find true immersion unless you block out the fact that a P-51 just saved you from the 190 that was trying to kill your 109 :rolleyes: . That discussion could go on for days, and has in many other threads!
I don't disagree that the impact of the 177 on the war was negligible. Personally, I don't fly bombers more than once or twice a year unless that happens to be our mission on one of the rare FSOs that I can make, so I have absolutely no personal stake in wanting any bomber. Heck, if anything, it makes attacking bombers that much harder. But to say it shouldn't be included at all is like denying it existed and was used operationally. Again, rare / dominant planes is what the perk system is for.
Regards,
Hammer
-
Double post... :noid
-
"the He-177 shouldnt be able to run at full throttle"
What I heard, if the P-51 used all of its wep, the entire engine needed to be overhauled. So, no re-arming for P-51's???? <--- I heard that even Hitech said this about p51's wep!
Oh, and NO PLANE could ride around at FULL throttle for the whole flight. Go drive your car, LITTERALY, pedal to the metal on the freeway for a 5 minutes, see what happens. Best chance is German cars, precise machines, which is one reason why they are so expensive. Percision = endurance = expensive.
Earlier russian fighter planes? The engines overheated easily... final moments in many of the early fights on the russian front could have been.. first - yak3 blows engine, next - yak3 coasting powerless towards earth, finally - 109 kills him? Our temperature guage applys ONLY for radiator hits, and for a slight indication of when our W.E.P. is about to run out? - we dont have a guage for how much 'nitro' is left, only for how hot the engine is. And more is you cant judge a plane totally by the speed and climb charts!
So nevermind "only He-177 shouldnt be allowed max throttle" - none of these planes could fly at max speed all day. In game E6B shows 'cruise speed'... DUH! DUH! DUH!
We get 'full throttle' ability because it would take too long to get to a fight!
Ki-84s only had about 1.5 minutes of wep? But it recharges in how many seconds? WEP RAN OUT, not endless supply like in here! The size of the WEP tank probably had to do with when the engine would explode or need total replacement!
German stuff has always been know for quality and hightechnology. Florida Key's bridges were made with German cement that could dry underwater, shipped in all the way from germany! Precise quality and generaly 'over engineered' because German designers put more emphasis on the German solidier having an ADVANTAGE! Porsches are high performance, high endurance, percision machines. They run forever but when they finally do breakdown, they are more expensive for parts and labor than any 'generic' car. Made in Germany > Made in China... DUH! He-177 is generally the same boat. Once bugs were worked out, they had a better machine! Again, the 109 prototype first flew in May 1935 so very much de-bugged high-end machine.
Saying that ONLY a luftwaffe plane shouldn't be able to run at full throttle is the most biased thing I've heard yet.
NOT ALL PLANES ARE EQUAL. I wouldnt expect a I-16 to compete with a Spit-16 for a reason... SPIT 16 > I-16... OOOHHKAAAY? We dont need to over-model the I-16, or under model the Spit-16...
But they both have a 16 in the title they should be equaaaaal!?!? No, they arent same plane, not equal!
He-177 A-5 should be put in game AS IT WAS with consideration for how the game goes!
HAMMER, HI, <SALUTE>
You too Blunder! <SALUTE>
I also fly mostly only Luftwaffe and generally I don't fly bombers either!
This is the point, we Luftwaffe guys MIGHT fly BOMBERS "more than twice a year" or "come back to game" if we had a FUN TO FIGHT IN LATE WAR MAIN ARENA ARMED BOMBER WITH A CHANCE TO LAND!
Especially if it was as Historically BETTER than other bombers in game! YES PERK? Tigers are perked, 262s are perked... Spit14 is perked... Better = perked?
Generally, when we get bored of flying FIGHTERS, we LOG OUT! Be nice if we had a BOMBER fun to fly and fight with too! We would stay in game longer!
AND SOME PLAYERS LIKE BOMBERS ONLY AND DONT LIKE FLYING FIGHERS! LUFTWAFFE BOMBER ONLY TYPE PILOTS DONT REALLY HAVE A PLANE IN AH!
Mr Hitech <SALUTE>, Mr Pyro <SALUTE>, your player base has gaps! Hardcore Luftwaffles, Luftwhiners, Luftwobbles, and Luftdweebs are mostly only flying FIGHTERS!
Again, the Ju-88 is neat but surviving to land is kinda rare if going to an 'action' area. FAILING is NOT FUN! Discouragement usually means "go do something else!"
AR-234 is fun if you want to only milk run and not fight at all. VERY NEATO!!! but boooorrriiing!!!
He-111 will be neat too, depending on its defensive guns, it might get more use than the Ju-88! Your Japan bomber Ki-67 with the 20mm is neat but most 'nationalist' players arent going for it! Why its a hangar queen!
He-177 = more time in game, more accounts, more targets, more fun!
<SALUTE ALL>
-
"the He-177 shouldnt be able to run at full throttle"
What I heard, if the P-51 used all of its wep, the entire engine needed to be overhauled. So, no re-arming for P-51's???? <--- I heard that even Hitech said this about p51's wep!
Same engine as on the Spitfire, so....no. Needed to be checked as it affected the maintenance schedule. Example: Spitfire Mk V pilot panicked and ran WEP for 30 minutes. Upon inspection of his engine nothing was amiss and the aircraft was returned to service. R2800s, the engine in the P-47, were run at WEP for 24+ hours in testing without problems.
Oh, and NO PLANE could ride around at FULL throttle for the whole flight. Go drive your car, LITTERALY, pedal to the metal on the freeway for a 5 minutes, see what happens. Best chance is German cars, precise machines, which is one reason why they are so expensive. Percision = endurance = expensive.
Nope, but fighters spent far, far higher percentages of their time at MIL settings than did bombers, particularly short ranged fighters such as the Bf109 and Spitfire.
Earlier russian fighter planes? The engines overheated easily..
RAF squadrons stationed in Russia (there actually were some) were shocked to find that the Russians typically flew at full throttle for the whole sortie. It made escorting Russian bombers in their Hurricanes very hard. I am sure it increased engine failure rates significantly, but not as you prattle about in your Yak-3 example.
So nevermind "only He-177 shouldnt be allowed max throttle" - none of these planes could fly at max speed all day. In game E6B shows 'cruise speed'... DUH! DUH! DUH!
We get 'full throttle' ability because it would take too long to get to a fight!
As I stated, and jag88 disagreed, the method of modeling HTC would likely resort to is making the engines more fragile to incoming fire as they did with the B-29's engines.
Ki-84s only had about 1.5 minutes of wep? But it recharges in how many seconds? WEP RAN OUT, not endless supply like in here! The size of the WEP tank probably had to do with when the engine would explode or need total replacement!
Depends entirely on the engine. For Merlins and Allisons it was endless unless the engine broke or ran out of fuel. R-2800s used a water-methanol injection (maybe just water?) and once that was gone there was no more WEP. Later German fighters also used additives, but earlier ones like the Bf109E-4 just used higher boost settings as on the Merlin and Allison, so far as I know. Not sure about the Homare 45-21 in the Ki-84, but I do know that boost setting is a take off setting. AH limits WEP artificially otherwise Mustangs and Spitfires would just use WEP for the whole flight (Hey, I just get a new plane next flight anyways!) while P-47s and some Bf109s and Fw190s would be time limited on WEP due to using additives.
German stuff has always been know for quality and hightechnology. Florida Key's bridges were made with German cement that could dry underwater, shipped in all the way from germany! Precise quality and generaly 'over engineered' because German designers put more emphasis on the German solidier having an ADVANTAGE! Porsches are high performance, high endurance, percision machines. They run forever but when they finally do breakdown, they are more expensive for parts and labor than any 'generic' car. Made in Germany > Made in China... DUH! He-177 is generally the same boat. Once bugs were worked out, they had a better machine! Again, the 109 prototype first flew in May 1935 so very much de-bugged high-end machine.
You might want to take the glasses off and read a bit more. Nothing is as cut and dried as you make it out to be. For example, the Bf109E-4, very good and reliable, the Bf109K-4, not so much. The Tiger II was terrible mechanically. The A6M2 was better built than its American opponents, the N1K2-J and Ki-84 were horribly unreliable.
Saying that ONLY a luftwaffe plane shouldn't be able to run at full throttle is the most biased thing I've heard yet.
You realize that was only suggested by jag88, a Luftwaffe fan and one of your fellow He177 advocates, right?
-
Hammer, not at all saying it shouldn't be added ever, just not before the Ju188 and Do 217.
-
Wikipedia.com - check yak-1, yak-9, yak-3 (early, mid, and latewar)
SOURCES!!!
Yak-1: early war version
Technical issues with subassemblies provided by different suppliers raised the I-26-2's weight 400 kg (882 lb) above projected figures, which restricted the airframe to only 4.4 G while overheating oil was still a problem. The many defects caused I-26-2 to fail government testing in 1940. Fortunately for Yakovlev, its competitors I-200 (future Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-3) and I-301 (future LaGG-3) also failed testing. Requested improvements were incorporated into I-26-3 which was delivered for testing on 13 October 1940. Although it passed on 9 December 1940, the aircraft was still very much unfinished with unresolved engine problems.
Production was further slowed by shortages of engines, propellers, radiators, wheels and cannons. Shortages of quality materials resulted in plywood being torn off the wings on several aircraft.
Due to loose tolerances, each aircraft was essentially unique with workers performing the final assembly having the unenviable task of mating what often proved to be somewhat dissimilar components. For example, left and right main landing gear could be of different lengths and different angles relative to the aircraft which required adjusting their attachments to ensure an even stance for the completed aircraft. Parts were often non-interchangeable between aircraft.[/b]
The aircraft's major problem early in deployment was fuel leaks caused by failure of spot-welded fuel tanks from vibration. Also troublesome was the fact that the canopy could not be opened under certain conditions in earlier models, potentially trapping the pilot in a falling aircraft. As the result, some pilots had the sliding portion of the canopy removed altogether. The first 1,000 Yak-1 had no radios at all. Installation of radio equipment became common by spring 1942 and obligatory by August 1942.[7] But Soviet radios were notoriously unreliable and short-ranged so they were frequently removed to save weight.
Like most early carburetor-equipped engines, the M-105 could not tolerate negative G forces which starved it of fuel. Moreover, they suffered breakdowns of magnetos and speed governors, and emitted oil from the reduction shaft.[8]
Yak-9: midwar version.
Unfortunately, the problems with the M-107A engine and moreover all the M-105 variants from which it derived, persisted: power plant overheating, oil leaks, loss of pressure in climbs, intense vibrations, burning out sparkplugs and a short engine life.
Yak-3: <--actually their late war version. Introduced in 1944.
Unresolved wartime problems with the Yak-3 included plywood surfaces coming unstuck when the aircraft pulled out of a high-speed dive.[1] Other drawbacks of the aircraft were short range and poor engine reliability. The pneumatic system for actuating landing gear, flaps and brakes, typical for all Yakovlev fighters of the time, was problematic. Though less reliable than hydraulic or electrical alternatives, the pneumatic system was preferred owing to significant weight savings.
THIS STUFF MAKES early HE-177's look GRRRREAT!
Oh and:
Ju-188 would be more of the saaame.
Do-217 should have Do-17 added first, both though are MORE OF THE SAAAAME!
-
THIS STUFF MAKES early HE-177's look GRRRREAT!
Your sources say nothing of the frequency of the listed problems and include irrelevant stuff about supply issues causing production delays. If one were to read what you wrote literally one would believe no Yak fighter ever worked, which is a notion I am sure some surviving Luftwaffe pilots who fought on the East Front would disabuse you of.
For the record, no, those problems do not make the He177 seem great.
Oh and:
Ju-188 would be more of the saaame.
Do-217 should have Do-17 added first, both though are MORE OF THE SAAAAME!
How so? Ju188 has a 20mm cannon in a top turret with 360 degree rotation as well as heavier caliber machine guns and much improved speed. Do217 has a large internal payload and is even faster. Do17Z would be more of the same, except worse.
-
Hey, don't 'YOU' me...
All that is from wikipedia, which has a system to help insure accurate information. Each sentence has a source number, and the lists of sources are at the bottom of the page... books, etc, written by people who were there and knew things! much more than Karnak's "Big Color Book of the Uber RAF" ~ by Captian Erik Brown HAHA
Ok... sooo no sources ever from you, on anything! LOL
-
wikipedia, which has a system to help insure accurate information
:rofl
-
Better than captain erik brown!
I'll see your :rofl, and raise you two more... :rofl :rofl :rofl
whats the matter? truth hurting? He-177 >>> Lanc :D
-
Out of curiosity, what was the He177's accuracy during the mini-blitz?
-
Accuracy wasn't even part of it. It was terror/revenge bombing. No matter where the bombs landed they blew something up in the dense packed streets of London.
So, that's a moot point really.
-
Out of curiosity, what was the He177's accuracy during the mini-blitz?
Abysmal.
Just like the accurracy of any other bomber in those raids, mostly due to very low training levels of mostly green aircrews.
But while the number of aborted missions was very high for all types (first two raids: 101 planes out of 732), the abort rate due to technical problems was extremely high for the He 177, at about 50%.
-
Schlowy?
-
I've heard of him! Schlowly, good pilot!
-
Schlowy?
That had been my guess as well.
The habit of ignoring anything positive about anything not German and anything negative about anything German is the same.
-
Did he have issues with you too?
You seem to not post any sources... I can understand why if he didnt like you either!
-
Did he have issues with you too?
You seem to not post any sources... I can understand why if he didnt like you either!
I don't have He177 sources, to be honest. If you want to get sources we'll need to talk about Spitfires, Fw190s or Mosquitos mostly. My Mosquito sources include some data for Lancasters and such as well. You don't like the answers though, as they conflict with your preconceived opinions that Lancasters couldn't hit anything smaller than a city.
You also don't look at operational realities when you make your comparisons, so you end up comparing apples to elephants and being smug about it as though you made a point.
-
I don't have He177 sources, to be honest.
:rofl :rofl
That's Rich,
-
:rofl :rofl
That's Rich,
Lots of data has been posted here over the years and I have a pretty good memory.
The problem with you guys is your agenda forces you to cherry pick the data you like. Per jag88 and Franz von Werra the He177 was fully operational and a perfect airplane by 1944. Yet, somehow, it had a greater than 50% abort rate for technical issues during the mini-blitz of 1944 per Lusche.
Lusche has demonstrated himself to be about as unbiased as anybody on these forums and I'll take his word for something way before I trust that you guys aren't cherry picking and trying to paint a falsely positive image.
-
Lots of data has been posted here over the years and I have a pretty good memory.
The problem with you guys is your agenda forces you to cherry pick the data you like. Per jag88 and Franz von Werra the He177 was fully operational and a perfect airplane by 1944. Yet, somehow, it had a greater than 50% abort rate for technical issues during the mini-blitz of 1944 per Lusche.
Lusche has demonstrated himself to be about as unbiased as anybody on these forums and I'll take his word for something way before I trust that you guys aren't cherry picking and trying to paint a falsely positive image.
Some good memory...
I literally just said that the He-177 had issues with its engines to the end and required management, I NEVER said it was perfect! WE, you and me, just discussed how AH could tackle and model those issues into the game ffs!
Do yourself a favor, NEVER EVER AGAIN CLAIM YOU HAVE A GOOD MEMORY, you clearly dont and such statements just make your arguments seem even more empty.
Btw, thank you for your honesty in accepting that you were opposing the aircraft out of ignorance, I hope you remember that next time.
Oh, wait...
And just so you know, given the circumstances, that 50% is the cherry-picked data, but what would you know, you have no knowledge on the matter.
-
Abysmal.
Just like the accurracy of any other bomber in those raids, mostly due to very low training levels of mostly green aircrews.
But while the number of aborted missions was very high for all types (first two raids: 101 planes out of 732), the abort rate due to technical problems was extremely high for the He 177, at about 50%.
Given that some of them had 15 hour training on the type, barely any ground support and untested aircraft, it is not surprising that they were an asset of dubious value in those early missions.
-
Franz said it was bug free (aka, perfect). It was a general statement. You've merely painted it, in the A-3 and A-5 versions, as fully ready for prime time operations.
-
Franz said it was bug free (aka, perfect). It was a general statement. You've merely painted it, in the A-3 and A-5 versions, as fully ready for prime time operations.
You included my name pal, you are trying to discredit what I have said and the info I have posted by trying to put me in the same bag as the troll. Right now I believe your memory is not the problem, you are now being straight dishonest by not disavowing your prior statement.
I have stated differences between the 3s and 5s, your memory is as bad as your agenda is clear. Only the A5 was truly capable of regular operations thanks to the displacement of the engines and other changes that made the aircraft more reliable. But what do you care, you do not know anything about the Greaif and what is even worse, you dont want to know anything.
You and Franz deserve each other.
-
jag88,
You are not misrepresenting the state of the He177A-5 to the extent that Franz is, but you are misrepresenting it.
Lets put it this way, during the Battle of Britain the RAF was forced to put pilots with only 10 hours into Spitfires and Hurricanes and they did not begin to approach a 50% abort rate due to mechanical problems. Likewise, the Luftwaffe put such pilots into late war Bf109s and Fw190s and, while I don't have the numbers, I'd be shocked if they were anything like 50%. You can't hand wave that abort rate during the mini-blitz by saying it was all due to green crews. If the machine is that dependent on experienced crew then it isn't ready for general deployment and use.
-
What about the argument that I would be a lot of fun to fly here?
-
jag88,
You are not misrepresenting the state of the He177A-5 to the extent that Franz is, but you are misrepresenting it.
Lets put it this way, during the Battle of Britain the RAF was forced to put pilots with only 10 hours into Spitfires and Hurricanes and they did not begin to approach a 50% abort rate due to mechanical problems. Likewise, the Luftwaffe put such pilots into late war Bf109s and Fw190s and, while I don't have the numbers, I'd be shocked if they were anything like 50%. You can't hand wave that abort rate during the mini-blitz by saying it was all due to green crews. If the machine is that dependent on experienced crew then it isn't ready for general deployment and use.
Ok, clearly now you are just trolling.
That abort rate was during ONE mission in January 1944, you are trying to extrapolate that... forget it, I am trying to have a reasonable discussion with someone that has already confessed to having no idea about the issue at hand, whose only source is his memory, one that has just been proven to be so unreliable to be a bad joke, and who has proven to be impermeable to primary source data, quotes from reliable and specialized sources and to common sense even.
Go talk to Franz, you both have the same level on understanding of the aircraft and the same attitude towards a healthy discussion, you just happen to be on different sides of the discussion. Thats all.
-
What then, was the abort rate? All I have to go on was Lusche's numbers. If they are wrong, provide broader numbers.
The problem with the He177 is that every time specific numbers come up they are dreadful. I am open to the idea that they weren't that bad, but provide some examples of later abort rates.
-
Just out of curiousity LOL... how many lancs were shot down?
Of the total of 7,377 Lancasters built (430 of them in Canada), 3,932 were lost in action. 53.3% in combat with the Reich!
SOURCE:
http://www.bombercommandmuseum.ca/lancbomber.html <--- imagine that, A SOURCE! WOWZERS!
And its not wikipedia! and it also says RAF got pwnt! hahaha
Im sure everything from bomb making material, the metals the lancs were made out of, the fuel in their tanks, even the co-pilots lunch was brought over from America...
Imagine if the 30,000 B17's and B24's werent on the scene?
Don't judge the He-177 by the status of the war!
The He-177 was a neato plane and we luft______ <-- (write whatever you want there), would like it added!
Danke sehr schone!
LW bomber losses:
Jan 44 loss rate was 7.8%
Feb - 5.2%
March - 8.3%
April - 8.7%
For comparison, RAF BC losses for the same months:
Jan 44 loss rate was 5.6%
in Feb - 5.2%
in March - 3.6%
in April - 2.6%
-
LW bomber losses:
Jan 44 loss rate was 7.8%
Feb - 5.2%
March - 8.3%
April - 8.7%
For comparison, RAF BC losses for the same months:
Jan 44 loss rate was 5.6%
in Feb - 5.2%
in March - 3.6%
in April - 2.6%
That is what I mean when he compares apples to elephants. He posts the Lancaster loss total for the entire hard campaign from 1942 through the end and expects it to be a direct comparison with Luftwaffe losses during a brief period in 1944 during which the Luftwaffe bombers are only in British airspace for a short period and are so close to German controlled air space that they can dive for home at 400mph. If a Lancaster tried to dive for home at 400mph after bombing Berlin it would crash in Germany itself. Lancasters, and all other Allied bombers, had to spend hours in German controlled air space each sortie.
-
jag88,
You are not misrepresenting the state of the He177A-5 to the extent that Franz is, but you are misrepresenting it.
Lets put it this way, during the Battle of Britain the RAF was forced to put pilots with only 10 hours into Spitfires and Hurricanes and they did not begin to approach a 50% abort rate due to mechanical problems. Likewise, the Luftwaffe put such pilots into late war Bf109s and Fw190s and, while I don't have the numbers, I'd be shocked if they were anything like 50%. You can't hand wave that abort rate during the mini-blitz by saying it was all due to green crews. If the machine is that dependent on experienced crew then it isn't ready for general deployment and use.
IIRC, abort rate was around 28%.
-
IIRC, abort rate was around 28%.
That is a lot better than 50+%, but still extremely high.
-
during the Battle of Britain the RAF was forced to put pilots with only 10 hours into Spitfires and Hurricanes
They had more than 10 hours of flight time. It would be 10 hours in a Spitfire/Hurricane.
-
They had more than 10 hours of flight time. It would be 10 hours in a Spitfire/Hurricane.
Yes, that is what I meant. The same is true of jag88's "Only 15 hours" He177 crews.
-
That is a lot better than 50+%, but still extremely high.
Bear in mind steel quality had gone to hell by '44. Armor plate on tanks, one of the most critical areas steel is used, would crack and shatter if struck by heavy shell hits.
Add in a weak supply chain, few support units, and untrained personelle, and it's a miracle the rate wasn't in the 40% range.
-
On line book.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/118652873/Price-A-2004-He-177-Greif-The-Luftwaffe-s-Lighter-International-Air-Power-Review-Vol-11
-
How about one of these?!
(http://www.panzertruppen.org/luftwaffe/apoyo/hs129_1.jpg)
HS-129 MOFOS! :D
-
How about one of these?!
(http://www.panzertruppen.org/luftwaffe/apoyo/hs129_1.jpg)
HS-129 MOFOS! :D
I see a free kill.
-
You never even knew about the plane. If you knew more about it... you'd think otherwise! :devil
-
You never even knew about the plane. If you knew more about it... you'd think otherwise! :devil
Actually it is because I do know about it that I see a free kill. Overweight and powered by two ~750hp French Gnome-Rhone engines. Slow and ungainly.
Free kill.
-
How about one of these?!
(http://www.panzertruppen.org/luftwaffe/apoyo/hs129_1.jpg)
HS-129 MOFOS! :D
Here
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,344358.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,344358.0.html)
-
Karnak, stop being an ass.
-
He-177: Dogfighter?
Super size He-177 having only two engine nacels, clean lines, 'bird shape', and super duper wing area... without bombs - I bet it glides, turns, holds E in corners, roll rate too, climb rate? It looks like it could dogfight! And if its airframe was anything like a divebomber at all, then it probably held together better than most...
From a vulched field with fighter hangars down: Stuka: can't up because ordinance is usually down. Ju-88s: no bombs, 50 fuel (25 runs out too fast), will actually dogfight ok some victories, nimble, but weakest weapon load out in game, of course try to ram enemy fighters too though LOL! Imagine an He-177, with 2x20mm and 6x13mm amo, upping from the bomber hangar! If perked, this wouldnt be a good idea...
Hs-129 vmax 253, is the original 1945 version of the current A-10 thunderbolt II, in service, Vmax = 439, and its Vnever exceed for 518...
Could an HS-129 turn like an A-10? <-- is the question.
-
Poor Karnak,
19000 posts and the best years of his life fighting against planes that will "wreck" the game or arguing for planes that the game is a "joke" without.
It never gets old!
-
I see a free kill.
Kind of like the Il-2?
Neither have very good change at surviving without air superiority.
-
Kind of like the Il-2?
Neither have very good change at surviving without air superiority.
Unless I am greatly mistaken the Il-2 is tougher, faster and more agile, but yes, essentially.
I'll grant that GVers would have a very different take on the Hs129 than I as a fighter guy do.
-
Hs 129 had more and better armor protection, same speed within a mph or three, same power loading, slightly higher wing loading at loaded weight (180 kg/m2 vs. 160 kg/m2).
-
Unless I am greatly mistaken the Il-2 is tougher, faster and more agile, but yes, essentially.
Tougher it will most likely be, but HS129 wasn't fragile either. Many many times my flight has been over due to a radiator hit in Il-2. Considering the overall outset of the situation, I don't think the speed difference makes much difference. As far as the wing loading is concerned, it is my estimate that the slip stream of two engines over a larger wing surface area combined with slotted flaps will offset the difference at least to a degree.
-
Hs 129 had more and better armor protection, same speed within a mph or three, same power loading, slightly higher wing loading at loaded weight (180 kg/m2 vs. 160 kg/m2).
What loadout would that be for?
People seem to focus on the 75mm gun when they talk about the Hs129, but from what I've read that was dangerously underpowered. Much better were the Hs129s armed with Mk103 cannons or similarly sized weapons.
-
What loadout would that be for?
People seem to focus on the 75mm gun when they talk about the Hs129, but from what I've read that was dangerously underpowered. Much better were the Hs129s armed with Mk103 cannons or similarly sized weapons.
I have read the same thing, that it was a beast to control, especially with the long-barreled 75mm on it.
Doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see it in the game (after the He-117 :P )
-
What loadout would that be for?
People seem to focus on the 75mm gun when they talk about the Hs129, but from what I've read that was dangerously underpowered. Much better were the Hs129s armed with Mk103 cannons or similarly sized weapons.
"Maximum take-off weight" for the Hs 129 and "loaded weight" for the Il-2.
The B-2/R4 or the B-3 with the PaK 40 was not widely used. Probably less than 50 aircraft flew with that gun, and it was a beast to fly. The main anti-tank configurations would be the MK 101/103 and BK 37 versions.
-
It flies pretty well in Il-2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czLxs_YKrT8
-
It flies pretty well in Il-2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czLxs_YKrT8
Yeah, but Il-2 uses a generic flight model for all of its units with just some tweaks.
That said, I don't think the Mk101/103/BK 37 Hs129s were bad, just the BK 75 one that keeps getting requested.
-
"Maximum take-off weight" for the Hs 129 and "loaded weight" for the Il-2.
The B-2/R4 or the B-3 with the PaK 40 was not widely used. Probably less than 50 aircraft flew with that gun, and it was a beast to fly. The main anti-tank configurations would be the MK 101/103 and BK 37 versions.
Was the 3,7cm one actually produced? I have seen somewhere that it was just a prototype, it and the BK 5 one dying to the BK 7,5cm one. Plus, there would be no crewmen to put in further clips...
Pretty much the same could be accomplished with a Bf-110 with a 3,7cm option... but with 60 shells and a crewman to load them.
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSAqOVFfpX-8LVSWN5ohezhHdaDfgtBvPJ9p-Y6Qk0U6kvEVihY)
...or an APC option for the Me-410.
-
Pretty much the same could be accomplished with a Bf-110 with a 3,7cm option... but with 60 shells.
That would make a nice addition when the Bf110s are updated.
...or an APC option for the Me-410.
I thought others more versed in Me410 stuff than I had said it was only ever loaded with HE for the BK5.
-
That would make a nice addition when the Bf110s are updated.
I thought others more versed in Me410 stuff than I had said it was only ever loaded with HE for the BK5.
AFAIK it was never used in an anti-tank role, it was tested and found viable, but not used.
-
Just out of curiousity LOL... how many lancs were shot down?
Of the total of 7,377 Lancasters built (430 of them in Canada), 3,932 were lost in action. 53.3% in combat with the Reich!
SOURCE:
http://www.bombercommandmuseum.ca/lancbomber.html <--- imagine that, A SOURCE! WOWZERS!
And its not wikipedia! and it also says RAF got pwnt! hahaha
Im sure everything from bomb making material, the metals the lancs were made out of, the fuel in their tanks, even the co-pilots lunch was brought over from America...
Imagine if the 30,000 B17's and B24's werent on the scene?
Don't judge the He-177 by the status of the war!
The He-177 was a neato plane and we luft______ <-- (write whatever you want there), would like it added!
Danke sehr schone!
The USAAF needed 30,000 B24s and B17s to match the tonnage carried by half the number of RAF bombers, RAF bombers which ultimately did more cumulative damage to civilians and cities.
It's nice to see someone on AH laughing about a combatant arm that suffered more than 50% losses. 1 in 6 survived their first tour of 30 missions in RAF bomber command. 1 in 40 survived the second tour. Such was the political revulsion for the amount of damage caused in German cities by Bomber Command and the number of German civilians killed that rather than have a TV show in the 60s celebrating their achievements no one talked about it. There is no RAF "Memphis Belle" equivalent. Bomber Command didn't get a 1939-1945 campaign medal. Robin Gibb of BeeGees fame managed to organise a memorial which was dedicated by Queen Elizabeth in 2012. When you account for killed & captured airmen, you're into greater than 70% loss of crew, for a mission profile that ultimately became regarded as pointless. Only U-Boats suffered greater losses with 94% of U-Boats that entered service being lost.
I'm disgusted that anyone I'm even peripherally involved with can laugh about so much death and destruction, or try to play the "British stuff was made with US resources! Britain sucks! Nyahh!" card when it involves so much loss, on both sides.
-
The USAAF needed 30,000 B24s and B17s to match the tonnage carried by half the number of RAF bombers, RAF bombers which ultimately did more cumulative damage to civilians and cities.
It's nice to see someone on AH laughing about a combatant arm that suffered more than 50% losses. 1 in 6 survived their first tour of 30 missions in RAF bomber command. 1 in 40 survived the second tour. Such was the political revulsion for the amount of damage caused in German cities by Bomber Command and the number of German civilians killed that rather than have a TV show in the 60s celebrating their achievements no one talked about it. There is no RAF "Memphis Belle" equivalent. Bomber Command didn't get a 1939-1945 campaign medal. Robin Gibb of BeeGees fame managed to organise a memorial which was dedicated by Queen Elizabeth in 2012. When you account for killed & captured airmen, you're into greater than 70% loss of crew, for a mission profile that ultimately became regarded as pointless. Only U-Boats suffered greater losses with 94% of U-Boats that entered service being lost.
I'm disgusted that anyone I'm even peripherally involved with can laugh about so much death and destruction, or try to play the "British stuff was made with US resources! Britain sucks! Nyahh!" card when it involves so much loss, on both sides.
Ignore the trolls, it is not worth it.
-
The USAAF needed 30,000 B24s and B17s to match the tonnage carried by half the number of RAF bombers, RAF bombers which ultimately did more cumulative damage to civilians and cities.
It's nice to see someone on AH laughing about a combatant arm that suffered more than 50% losses. 1 in 6 survived their first tour of 30 missions in RAF bomber command. 1 in 40 survived the second tour. Such was the political revulsion for the amount of damage caused in German cities by Bomber Command and the number of German civilians killed that rather than have a TV show in the 60s celebrating their achievements no one talked about it. There is no RAF "Memphis Belle" equivalent. Bomber Command didn't get a 1939-1945 campaign medal. Robin Gibb of BeeGees fame managed to organise a memorial which was dedicated by Queen Elizabeth in 2012. When you account for killed & captured airmen, you're into greater than 70% loss of crew, for a mission profile that ultimately became regarded as pointless. Only U-Boats suffered greater losses with 94% of U-Boats that entered service being lost.
I'm disgusted that anyone I'm even peripherally involved with can laugh about so much death and destruction, or try to play the "British stuff was made with US resources! Britain sucks! Nyahh!" card when it involves so much loss, on both sides.
Lighten up, Francis.
-
The Hs129 was quite susceptable to both ground fire and enemy fighters. Sure, it was armored, but it didn't have the power to fly too high above the battlefield, and its top speed was abyssmally slow, so even though it was armored it sat there in ground fire for a longer time, taking more damage. According to Squadron's info on the plane, the vast majority of all Hs129s lost in combat during World War Two fell to anit-aircraft fire.
Just some loss statistics:
At the battle of Kursk, 60 Hs129Bs were put into service (along with FWs, Mes, etc), and in 3 weeks 48 of those were lost in combat due to enemy air or to ack fire.
IV./SG9 claimed 1500 tanks and armoted vehicles plus thousands of other vehicles destroyed in 7 months of service, but in the first half of 1944 alone they lost 56 Hs129Bs to combat and 38 more to accidents.
In June 1944 under operation Bagration, 10./SG9 and 14./SG9 were sent to reinforce 13./SG9. While they claimed many tanks destroyed, they started with 67 Hs129Bs and lost 22 to combat and 21 more to accidents.
In Sept 1944 Fw190s were replacing all remaining Hs129B units to attack tanks and ground targets. In January 1945 there were only 39 Hs129Bs left in service, all with 3 gruppen of SG9.
Overall it was a severely underpowered platform, and even when NOT shot down could just as easily kill you due to poor handling and too much weight. The 75mm cannon version had a very small number built, and there are only a few combat reports that ever mention them in use. The BK3,7 version was already so heavy you had to remove all internal guns to save weight when it was installed. Soviets captured some with BK3,7 and found controlling the plane intolerably hard with just this gun alone.
The most common gun was the Mk101 30mm. It had a 30rd drum on it. This was introduced in June 1942. Before that pilots just strafed with 20mm and dropped their 4x 50kg bombload. They were skeptical at first whether the 30mm was any better than their bombs. They eventually were won over, and the Mk101 was the primary weapon system until the Mk103 later on. The Mk103 had a higher muzzle velocity, a 100rd belt of ammo, and worked even better, but it wasn't available until much later in the war. BK3,7s were scarce, and 75mm were almost nonexistent.
I'd like to see one with only the 30mm option. Give it the Mk101 and the Mk103 for early-to-mid-war scenario and FSO use. Other than that it wasn't a very good plane. Final word on the matter? Maybe just this: Rudel was quoted as preferring the Ju87G over the Hs129. I believe he found the Ju87 more survivable.
-
from wikipedia:
hs-129
empty weight: 8,860 lbs?
max speed 253 mph?
engines 2x 700 hp?
Power / empty weight ratio: .158
stuka ju-87 B2
emty weight: 7,086 lbs.
max speed: 242 mph?
engine 1x 1,200 hp?
Power / empty weight ratio: .169
by the way, Kursk is not a fair test... that place at that time probably ranks as the most dangerous place of all time? Ground guns poking out of every bush... And Germany was on the losing side, as USA's help was in full force by this time. Half of the eastern front was USA made, USA paid, including stalin's lunch!
The HS-129, like the He-177: dont blame the plane for the status of the country.
Hs-129 is the first version of the A-10 thunderbolt which is the scariest thing to a tank today?
-
Porsches are high performance, high endurance, percision machines. They run forever but when they finally do breakdown, they are more expensive for parts and labor than any 'generic' car.
Actually Porsches have a seriously flawed engine design which results in catastrophic engine failure around 60k miles or sooner. The flaw still exists even in the 997 even though the engine has gone through several generations. The cylinder lining is too weak and a cooling channel is going so close to the cylinder that it gets cracked. When coolant flows in the engine it water locks and blows the whole engine.
Second very common problem is intermediary shaft bearing which is supposed to be sealed. In reality it gets washed by engine oil losing it's grease (which is why only dry-sump GT or turbo class engines actually last together). It then grinds itself in pieces again totaling the whole engine with a few seconds of warning (driver must turn the engine off at speed to avoid catastrophic failure when first sign comes).
If you see second hand Porsche markets you'll find literally dozens of 911s with replaced engines, some as little as 20k miles driven. Some owners are going through 2 or 3 engines during ownership. Blown engines are so common that it's practically impossible to find an engine from wrecking yards and retrofitted engines are sold with a huge premium.
-
The Hs129 was quite susceptable to both ground fire and enemy fighters. Sure, it was armored, but it didn't have the power to fly too high above the battlefield, and its top speed was abyssmally slow, so even though it was armored it sat there in ground fire for a longer time, taking more damage. According to Squadron's info on the plane, the vast majority of all Hs129s lost in combat during World War Two fell to anit-aircraft fire.
Imagine that! A dedicated close-support aircraft mostly being shot down by ground fire. Who would have thunk it?!
At least 9 on the Krusty scale.
-
They were skeptical at first whether the 30mm was any better than their bombs.
Please post some of these quotes you've supposedly read. Martin Pegg's book has a lot of quotes from the HS129 pilots and they liked the effectiveness of the MK101/MK103 very much.
-
Imagine that! A dedicated close-support aircraft mostly being shot down by ground fire. Who would have thunk it?!
Not very surprising, is it.
I've read, but not seen the actual numbers, that the Il-2 had a horrible casualty rate as well. The Typhoons and other Allied ground attack aircraft also suffered tremendous loss rates. AA guns actually got more Allied aircraft than German fighters did.
-
No that's not very surprising at all. Especially in the east were most sorties were flown in support of ground operations. I would think only with regard to the strategic bombing campaign in the west would fighters out-score AAA.
-
Which isn't surprising, given that fighters are typically miles and miles away when enemy CAS planes show up, and AAA is just waiting for them to show up.
-
Please post some of these quotes you've supposedly read. Martin Pegg's book has a lot of quotes from the HS129 pilots and they liked the effectiveness of the MK101/MK103 very much.
Yes,
They also liked the B-3
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/hs129b3Acount_zps435a34bd.jpg)
:O 3ft hole
:aok
-
Lanc's were a joke. Take away their F3 view and we'll see how they do, they simply didnt have a complete set of defense to survive vs fighters anymore than that luftwaffe bombers during the battle for britain. Which is why Lancs couldn't survive at all during the day.
Those 30,000 USA bombers had DEFENSIVE GUNS... which killed more luftwaffe planes than any fighters, during the day to hit targets!
My laughing was at the guys who post "crappy 177." When compared to lancs, 177's didn't do so bad, especially considering 30,000 USA bombers were drawing luftwaffe fighters. And this same guy says "what was survival rate of the mini-blitz?" Like he didnt know. I LAUGHED because instant pwning when Lancs lost 4,000 of 7,000 at night, more than half of their lancs. Even with USA's daylight bombers of 30,000 heavys. Not so much at the crews dieng but the absolute bs of lancs being anything more than generic. They could barely defend themselves so lightly armed, which is why they had more allowance for bombs.
And no mention of the atrocity of bombing civilians? RAF started the city bombing by messing with Luftwaffe's radio guidance systems, causing luftwaffe to bomb London during the Battle for Britain. And within 12 hours of the Luftwaffe bombers landing, the RAF was upping to bomb Berlin? NOT A SET UP? whatever... the pilot of the luftwaffe bomber group was landing in Berlin to answer to Hitler and that night england bombs Berlin... TOTAL SET UP...
"I'd rather have them bombing our cities than our airfields" <--- mid battle for britain statement by RAF high command, this is what saved england the loss. Germany was winning, Englands spitys and huri's airfields etc needed the break, they were off balance. Well known fact.
Evil England makes bombing civilians a goal.
Lets see, ww1:
Austrian couple Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie get murdered by a Serb does not give Enland the right to steal Germany's colonies around the world, then try to enslave germany by with reparation charges, oh and shrinking Germany's size... No kidding ww2 was part 2 of ww1... Evil england. Evil england bombers... USA should have stayed out and forced England France Germany to negotiate.
It is a wonder to this day why USA joined allied side at all in ww1...
ww2:
Lets see, Hitler wanted peace with England, Neville Chamberlain wanted peace, but England votes in Winston Churchill who wants war in may 1940. And then, when Rudolf Hess sneaks a 110 away and bails over England to make peace, he gets locked up for the rest of his life, he gets tortured and drugged so bad that he was only a vegatable when visitors came. Naaaw, england didnt want war!
Rippley dont go from general to specific, every new model sometimes gets bugs, especially cutting edge technology.
Heres a source:
wikipedia.org:
The 997 is the most commercially successful 911 of all time, having sold 100,000 units between its introduction in 2005 and July 2007. It has also received mostly positive reviews from the worldwide motoring press; even British motoring journalist Jeremy Clarkson, a known detractor of Porsche vehicles, noted that the 997 will "make love to your fingertips and stir your soul."[1]
SPAM THIS THREAD UP, 177 should be added. Maybe a separate thread for sources only for 177?
-
:lol
-
Lanc's were a joke. Take away their F3 view and we'll see how they do, they simply didnt have a complete set of defense to survive vs fighters anymore than that luftwaffe bombers during the battle for britain. Which is why Lancs couldn't survive at all during the day.
Those 30,000 USA bombers had DEFENSIVE GUNS... which killed more luftwaffe planes than any fighters, during the day to hit targets!
Its true that RAF caught during daylight raids where punished for their .0303 defensive weapons, and lousy defensive boxes, when caught by German JGs.
Reading JG26 war diary 43-45: Enemy fighters took the brunt of German casualties, when high-12 attack became standard, and vs sturmgruppen with armoured Fw190A8's, US buffs defensive .50s did not do much good against them at all, allied fighters scored most of the kills.
-
Lanc's were a joke. Take away their F3 view and we'll see how they do, they simply didnt have a complete set of defense to survive vs fighters anymore than that luftwaffe bombers during the battle for britain. Which is why Lancs couldn't survive at all during the day.
Nope, Lancasters couldn't survive during the day against fighters. Of course, B-17s and B-24s couldn't either. The only bombers that could were the Ar234 and Mosquito. Perhaps the B-29 could have had it been tested, but it didn't do well against MiG-15s.
Those 30,000 USA bombers had DEFENSIVE GUNS... which killed more luftwaffe planes than any fighters, during the day to hit targets!
You know those gunners claimed kills at about a ten to one ratio of what they actually got, yes? You know that the Lancasters, Halifaxes and Mosquitoes were more accurate than the B-17s and B-24s, yes?
My laughing was at the guys who post "crappy 177." When compared to lancs, 177's didn't do so bad, especially considering 30,000 USA bombers were drawing luftwaffe fighters.
Drawing Luftwaffe fighters was not the primary goal of the bombing campaign. It was useful, but the primary purpose was to destroy the designated targets. In addition, the Germans were not facing 30,000 American bombers. A significant number of bombers were sent to the Pacific and CBI theaters and another large number were produced as spares and some were retained in the USA for training purposes.
As to the He177 vs Lancaster, the He177 was incapable of doing the operations the Lancaster did. It would have been rejected by either the RAF or USAAF as unsuitable. It was, really, just an oversized medium bomber.
And this same guy says "what was survival rate of the mini-blitz?" Like he didnt know. I LAUGHED because instant pwning when Lancs lost 4,000 of 7,000 at night, more than half of their lancs.
Maybe instead of laughing you ought to have tried reading. I didn't ask what the loss rate of He177s was during the mini-blitz was (it was the lowest of the participating bombers), I asked how their accuracy was.
The truly laughable thing is that you think a couple months of light, brief intrusions are the equivalent of years of large scale, long missions deep into enemy territory and that you can directly compare the total losses incurred by those two very different operational realities.
Even with USA's daylight bombers of 30,000 heavys. Not so much at the crews dieng but the absolute bs of lancs being anything more than generic. They could barely defend themselves so lightly armed, which is why they had more allowance for bombs.
4,000 B-17s, which could in your view "defend themselves", were lost. No bomber could defend itself with guns.
And no mention of the atrocity of bombing civilians? RAF started the city bombing by messing with Luftwaffe's radio guidance systems, causing luftwaffe to bomb London during the Battle for Britain.
Ah, the wonderful excuses for the bombing of London. Did those nasty, conniving Brits also arrange for the Luftwaffe to bomb civilians in Warsaw, Coventry and dozens of other locations?
And within 12 hours of the Luftwaffe bombers landing, the RAF was upping to bomb Berlin? NOT A SET UP? whatever... the pilot of the luftwaffe bomber group was landing in Berlin to answer to Hitler and that night england bombs Berlin... TOTAL SET UP...
Yes, they did bomb Berlin immediately afterwards as a response. Not very hard to set that up though. Not like they had to fly 12,000 miles, daisy chaining mid-air refueling to get a single bomber over the target as in the Falklands war. Berlin was well within the range of the Wellingtons. But it wasn't a setup. The German bombers bombed London without any assistance from the British, but they didn't do so intentionally on that day.
"I'd rather have them bombing our cities than our airfields" <--- mid battle for britain statement by RAF high command, this is what saved england the loss. Germany was winning, Englands spitys and huri's airfields etc needed the break, they were off balance. Well known fact.
Yes, said well after the Germans switched to trying to erase London in retaliation for the few bombs the British had dropped on Berlin. You are trying to use a statement made well after the fact as incriminating evidence when it was a purely tactical comment. Germany bombed civilians before anybody, other than the Japanese, had in WWII. You're distorted view of history doesn't change that.
That all said, Hamburg and Dresden were horrible and unnecessary atrocity. One that the USAAF B-17s and B-24s participated in.
Lets see, ww1:
Austrian couple Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie get murdered by a Serb does not give Enland the right to steal Germany's colonies around the world, then try to enslave germany by with reparation charges, oh and shrinking Germany's size...
One part delusion and one part persecution complex? WWI was a clusterf**k in which there were no good guys. Secret treaties and old animosities. The excuse the UK used to get involved had nothing to do with any assassination. It was the treaty they had guaranteeing Belgium's neutrality which was violated by the Germans. The real reason the UK wanted to fight Germany was because Germany was challenging the Royal Navy's supremacy and with it the UK's maritime based empire. Germany wanted their place in the sun and the UK wanted to keep the competition down. Same old same old as the last five hundred years, just with industrial technology this time. The reparations were a horrible idea that the French and British should not have done.
No kidding ww2 was part 2 of ww1.
True.
.. Evil england. Evil england bombers... USA should have stayed out and forced England France Germany to negotiate.
It is a wonder to this day why USA joined allied side at all in ww1...
The UK's propaganda was much, much more effective than Germany's. Germany probably shouldn't have been trying to get Mexico to go to war with the United States either. When that came to light it really didn't help Germany's position with the United States.
ww2:
Lets see, Hitler wanted peace with England, Neville Chamberlain wanted peace,
Hitler didn't think the UK and France really meant it when they told him that invading Poland would result in war. Neither the UK nor France wanted war, but they drew their line and told Germany where that line was. It was Germany's knowing actions that led to war.
but England votes in Winston Churchill who wants war in may 1940.
Neville Chamberlain's government declared war, not Winston Churchill's.
And then, when Rudolf Hess sneaks a 110 away and bails over England to make peace, he gets locked up for the rest of his life, he gets tortured and drugged so bad that he was only a vegatable when visitors came. Naaaw, england didnt want war!
Peace with Nazi Germany? Are you nuts? Peace with Nazi Germany was not possible. It was either a temporary thing until they decided it was your turn to be conquered or you were a puppet state. That is, of course, ignoring the atrocities the Nazi's were busy perpetrating against populations in areas they controlled.
-
Has Barbi re-registered? It would appear so with the amout of revisionist history being spewed.
-
Franz is clearly delusional. Best thing we can do is all add him to our ignore lists.
-
Please post some of these quotes you've supposedly read. Martin Pegg's book has a lot of quotes from the HS129 pilots and they liked the effectiveness of the MK101/MK103 very much.
Funny how you take something and try to twist it... Oh, wait.. not funny. Standard for you. Include my words immediately AFTER that comment. I said AT FIRST they were skeptical. Then they were won over and the 30mms became the primary method of busting tanks. This quite factual comment is one you agree with yourself, and yet you attack me over it.
You go well out of your way to selectively edit your quote of me just to try and create an argument. You almost always do this wmaker. You have a personal vendetta against me and it's quite clear. Your comment doesn't deserve a response, but I will stoop to give you and your cronies your answer: Squadron In Action, page 32, discussing the Hs129 in its early service before the 30mm Mk101 was even available.
Imagine that! A dedicated close-support aircraft mostly being shot down by ground fire. Who would have thunk it?!
At least 9 on the Krusty scale.
Don't be a dull troll. The discussion was talking about the durability of the plane. Comparisons were flying around to almost make it sound like it was invulnerable to ground fire. There were also direct comparisons to our IL-2, which IMO is not a good comparison. I was simply adding some statistics to show that it was quite vulnerable, and that it didn't fly as lightly as our IL-2. There was nothing spectacular about its armor defenses. If it got hit, it would still go down. Probably more so, since it could barely fly on 1 engine. If 1 were damaged or knocked out, you couldn't fly home the same as you could in a bf110 or Ju88. Even in 1942, before the super heavy armament options were around, an engine loss often meant a fatal crash. The Kaegero book "Hs 129 in Combat" lists time and time again when a Hs 129 took damage to an engine, it either went down, the pilot had to bail, or the pilot had to force-land (i.e. crash) immediately. The plane needed a long runway takeoff to get airborne, and when at full loading was slowed to 325km/h. What that armor did was keep the pilot alive. It didn't stop the plane from going down, pilot and all. End result: It wasn't invulnerable, and it was weofully underpowered and hard to fly.
Yes,
They also liked the B-3
:O 3ft hole
:aok
The few B-3s actually made were extensively tested for quite a while on all manner of captured Soviet tanks. Including the IS2 and the biggest baddest tanks available. They were excessively tested. Actual combat records (not tests against captured tanks) are rare. Actual production versions of the B-3 had the Revi gunsight replaced with a telescoping sight. How many photos have you seen with this telescope gunsight? Almost all the 75mm equipped planes in photos have the standard Revi. Most likely all those photos you see of Hs129s are of the initial prototype, the plane that flew with the wooden mockup, or the Hs129C prototype (which was mocked up with 75mm but never produced). The ZFR 3B doesn't look like the other revi gunsights. You'd notice it when you saw it.
On the production breakdown it lists 23 B-3s made. Those ranged from wrk no 162033-162055. These were made between July 1944 and September 1944 (considering produciton was very slow, this is understandable). "Equipped to" lists DT+GB to 'GD, others N/A. The note next to this says:
"162052 captured by the Soviets in 1945. DT+GB test flown at E-Stelle Tarnewitz on 11 August 1944 by Oblt. Gatzemeier. DT+GD ferry flight from Breslau to Udetfeld on 27 September 1944. Last 20 units (4 B-2s & 16 B-3s) manufactured September of 1944. Production halted, all extant airframes scrapped."
Production for all Hs129s was stopped in Sept 1944. That means of the 23 B-3s produced, 16 were scrapped in the factory? At least 3 were dedicated to the erprobungskomando group for testing. J.R. Smith's Profile Publications book says both 10/SG9 and 14/SG9 received them (Kaegero says 10 and 12 gruppe), so it can't have been many per gruppe. On Jan 22, 1945 3 of those SG9 B-3s were reported to have been destroyed on the ground by IL2s, thus reducing the count even further. Your quoted comment is repeated in different words in Kaegero's book, and it is the only actual reference I've seen to B-3s seeing real combat.
You have to admit it: B-3s with 75mm weren't the norm and weren't used much at all. They probably didn't even fill a single gruppe at a time. That's something that the Ta152 can at least boast, but the 75mm Hs129 cannot.
-
Has Barbi re-registered? It would appear so with the amout of revisionist history being spewed.
Agreed.
- oldman
-
Rippley dont go from general to specific, every new model sometimes gets bugs, especially cutting edge technology.
Heres a source:
wikipedia.org:
The 997 is the most commercially successful 911 of all time, having sold 100,000 units between its introduction in 2005 and July 2007. It has also received mostly positive reviews from the worldwide motoring press; even British motoring journalist Jeremy Clarkson, a known detractor of Porsche vehicles, noted that the 997 will "make love to your fingertips and stir your soul."[1]
LOL except that the engine problem exists already from the 996 and continues to 997. That's part of the reason why the 996 non-turbos or non GTs depreciate like nuts. The 993 had also cylinder lining problems but they were aircooled so nobody actually expected them to last too long.
Sales figures mean nothing, most Porsches are bought as garage queens which ironically is what usually also kills them. Porsche experts warn to stay clear from any garage kept low mileage 996 - and the same will be said to any older 997 since they share the same exact weaknesses :)
A porsche owner is not going to complain about his 100k purchase even when the first engine blows under warranty at 40k miles. Maybe not even when the second one goes at 80k. But the next owner _will_ complain about the 16k bill the third blown engine will give him ;)
-
There were also direct comparisons to our IL-2, which IMO is not a good comparison.
It is very comparable to the Sturmovik in all things. The rest of your post is just more of your usual rubbish.
-
As to the He177 vs Lancaster, the He177 was incapable of doing the operations the Lancaster did. It would have been rejected by either the RAF or USAAF as unsuitable. It was, really, just an oversized medium bomber.Maybe instead of laughing you ought to have tried reading. I didn't ask what the loss rate of He177s was during the mini-blitz was (it was the lowest of the participating bombers), I asked how their accuracy was.
You have already confessed to knowing nothing of the He-177, you should really stop making absurd comments that you can not substantiate.
Also, stop feeding the troll.
-
You have already confessed to knowing nothing of the He-177, you should really stop making absurd comments that you can not substantiate.
Also, stop feeding the troll.
No, I didn't confess to knowing nothing about it. I said I didn't have any good sources, that is far different from knowing nothing.
Am I wrong that it had lower loss rates than the Ju188 and Do217 in the mini-blitz?
Am I wrong that it was much shorter ranged than the Lancaster?
-
No, I didn't confess to knowing nothing about it. I said I didn't have any good sources, that is far different from knowing nothing.
Am I wrong that it had lower loss rates than the Ju188 and Do217 in the mini-blitz?
Am I wrong that it was much shorter ranged than the Lancaster?
No, you dont have ANY sources other than you can "remember" from reading this very board.
Lets see what you know...
Why did it have less losses than the Ju and Do?
Quote the ranges and bombload for the He-177 without using the sources I provided. Also, indicate the differences with the Lanc. And remember, even a broken clock is right twice a day...
Please recall that you were so clueless as to claim the He-177 carried most of its load externally among other equally ridiculous statements, if you are right about some of the statements you made those were clearly the exception to the sea of ignorance that has been the rule with you. Medium bomber? Wtf?
Really, just stop talking about issues you clearly know nothing about, you are becoming worse than Krusty.
-
(http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/2922/heinkelhe177a5greifarti.jpg)
-
This site is an interesting, and staggering, read:
http://www.usshancockcv19.com/history6.htm
totals of aircraft production and losses.
Germany was definitely had the best kill loss ratio! And considering how lopsided the statistics became when the war came to an end, it seems the luftwaffe was clearly the uberest! Germany's 45 losses per day were inflicting most of Britain's 45 per day, 56 of the Soviets per day, and most of the USA's 113 per day! It's a known fact that Japan lost most of their best pilots in midway, and that USA fighters were owning japan fighters from then on - mariana turkey shoot for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marianas_Turkey_Shoot
PLANES A DAY WORLDWIDE
From Germany's invasion of Poland Sept. 1, 1939 and ending with Japan's surrender Sept. 2, 1945 --- 2,433 days.
From 1942 onward, America averaged 170 planes lost a day.
Nation Aircraft Average
USA 276,400 113
S Union 137,200 56
G Britain 108,500 45
Germany 109,000 45
Japan 76,300 31
Awesome picture btw MiloMorai, thanks! I 'saved' it and it zooms in clear, very nice.
-
Hey Franz, you are suffering from the side effects of listening to goebel's propaganda too long.
The war is over and everyone brutally massacred eachother.
Capice?
You may be facing off against the other nation's faces of propaganda here as well, but most of them know it and are just picking on you to further entrench it onto your mind so they can emotionally manipulate you when they find it interesting or fun to do so (like a puppet).
Now do a good thing for your soul and stop personally identifying yourself with a nation that no longer exists and an ideaology that lost due to its own retardedness. You will be happier and more in control of your own existence for it.
The German people don't need you to justify their position, they are doing their best to move on from the past, unlike many others.
-
Where's the dilusions? Where is the propaganda? its all youtube'able or wikipedia'able oohkaay?
German country lines:
notice the shrinking borders after ww1.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwsmzHxMktA
German colonies:
notice all of the colonies changed flags.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8OEuj6-pVg
Archduke Franz Ferdinand:
This guy and his wife executed... and England and France declare war on Germany?
Only way to connect these two was England / France wanted Germany's colonies!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand
Why did USA enter ww1?
USA was selling arms to allies, USA wanted its money so Allies had to win?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_US_enter_World_War_1
The last part about England messing with radio signals:
Battle of Britain movie, the classic depicts this event but it implies 'accident' in orders or radios errors that resulted in a German bomber squadron bombing London. Was it an accident?
There was a documentary about this 'conspiracy' long ago but it disappeared without a trace, for obvious reasons? The show clarified how it was possible to mimic Geman radio tower signals.
Radio direction finders are the loops on the planes, tune to a ground station signal by turning the loop, when locked on, you have a direction to that signal station. Then lock onto another signal and you have a triangle, and on your map you know where you are! Moreso, bombers know they are over the target! England was more ahead in radar and radios at start of war, they would know how to manipulate a signal, all have to do is 'listen' for existing frequencies. Ofcourse Germany's towers were in northwest france areas. All England had to do was reproduce same frequencies at a different locations, reproduce on England's side of the coast, south western england, in order to give the Luftwaffe (night raid) bombers a false reading. England sneaky act of putting the 'crosshair' reading over the city of London would initiate 'war on cities' and great for public relations "evil germany bombed London!" Next the 'instant payback,' the very next night, England bombs Berlin and set it all in motion - war on civilians. Hitler took the bait immediately and became 'the badguy' for sure. Now that London was the target, the RAF had time time to recouperate and regain it's ability to defend the island, at the expense of civilians. Englands raid was at night, on civilians, and continued to be for the rest of the war. This war on civilians combined with Germany's loss of the half of the 6th army in Stalingrad is one reason for the 'final solution' - the halocaust - no respest for life by anyone, anywhere by this time. This said, Germany did follow the Geneva Convention, a few attrocities aside, for prisoners of war on the western front. No rights were given on the eastern front by Germany or Russia.
Read about Lemp too, Poland was invaded so England / France declared war on Germany but it was a 'sitzkreig' because England / France weren't attacking on the border. Lemp was a uboat captian, he was told to patrol an area (and probably only send weather reports), but if war initiated, Lemp's pre-orders were to go to a different location... and patrol there. Lemp went and patrolled there before war was official. So when the orders to 'goto war patrol location' was given, Lemp was already there. Lemp sank a zigzagging ship that had its lights out also on the first night of the war. It was a civilian ship and not supposed to be doing either of those. It was supposed to be going straight only, with its lights on. Lemp shot it once, and a secondary explosion killed many of the civilians while the civilains were 'abandoning ship.' Lemp realized it was a civilian ship too late. He did radio silence all the way back to Germany. In the mean time, England was crying "germany is doing sinking passenger ships! even when abandoning ship!" No mention of zigzagging or lights out. Hitler had no word from Lemps bout so Hitler had to deny it. After invasion of France and now during Battle for Britain, "bombing of civilians" was all England needed to fully 'paint' germany as the badguys. USA was doing full business with England, including giving them 50 older american destroyers which work great for finding uboats! Read about the Reuben James - a USA destroyer escorting a convoy to england, uboat sank it, USA got upset, month later Pearl Harbor happened. The End!
-
Just got to love revisionist history. :x
-
This site is an interesting, and staggering, read:
http://www.usshancockcv19.com/history6.htm
totals of aircraft production and losses.
Germany was definitely had the best kill loss ratio! And considering how lopsided the statistics became when the war came to an end, it seems the luftwaffe was clearly the uberest! Germany's 45 losses per day were inflicting most of Britain's 45 per day, 56 of the Soviets per day, and most of the USA's 113 per day! It's a known fact that Japan lost most of their best pilots in midway, and that USA fighters were owning japan fighters from then on - mariana turkey shoot for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marianas_Turkey_Shoot
PLANES A DAY WORLDWIDE
From Germany's invasion of Poland Sept. 1, 1939 and ending with Japan's surrender Sept. 2, 1945 --- 2,433 days.
From 1942 onward, America averaged 170 planes lost a day.
Nation Aircraft Average
USA 276,400 113
S Union 137,200 56
G Britain 108,500 45
Germany 109,000 45
Japan 76,300 31
Awesome picture btw MiloMorai, thanks! I 'saved' it and it zooms in clear, very nice.
Go away crazy troll.
-
franz, you have fallen down a well bro.
Take a deep breath, let the mind enjoy a bit of silence and move on.
PS: Get back to posting pics of the 177! :D
-
Am I missing something or is Von Werra, Schlowy? :noid
-
Am I missing something or is Von Werra, Schlowy? :noid
Whoever it is, he sounds like a revisionist as well as a Third Reich apologist.
Franz, with what money and which armies were the Germans supposed to administer their colonies?
-
Stop feeding the troll.
-
Funny how you take something and try to twist it... Oh, wait.. not funny. Standard for you. Include my words immediately AFTER that comment. I said AT FIRST they were skeptical. Then they were won over and the 30mms became the primary method of busting tanks. This quite factual comment is one you agree with yourself, and yet you attack me over it.
You go well out of your way to selectively edit your quote of me just to try and create an argument. You almost always do this wmaker. You have a personal vendetta against me and it's quite clear. Your comment doesn't deserve a response, but I will stoop to give you and your cronies your answer: Squadron In Action, page 32, discussing the Hs129 in its early service before the 30mm Mk101 was even available.
:lol
The cannon most certainly had its teething problems. There's a good account of that in Mr.Pegg's book. Btw, the source you mentioned says that they flat out preferred bombs initially, no comparison was made about their effectiveness, And that is the reason why your comment seemed weird and that's why I asked where you had read it. It is good to comprehend what you are reading. :)
As far as being selective goes, I'd say it is rather selective to bring up brief initial problems with the cannon considering that most use HS129 would see in AH would be with the 100% working MK103.
-
Stop feeding the troll.
(http://openclipart.org/people/cybergedeon/cybergedeon_dont_feed_trolls.svg)
-
Can we feed the sheep though?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WW2_aircraft_production
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWII_losses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_losses_in_World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_flying_aces
Some 'picked' info and charts, some of it is VERY different from the chart I posted earlier.
Seems England had much fewer losses... maybe they werent even getting into fights? Maybe thats what the yanks (USA) were for... TO FIGHT! ;)
Either way, seems the luft was handing the world their behinds! :ahand
China: Total losses of the Nationalist Air Force were 2,468 (According to Chinese and Taiwanese Sources).
Finland: Reported losses during the Winter War totaled 67, of which 42 were operational, while 536 aircraft were lost during the Continuation War, of which 209 were operational losses. (Overall 603).[1]
France: From the beginning of the war until the cease-fire in 1940, 892 aircraft were lost, of which 413 were in action and 234 were on the ground. Losses included 508 fighters and 218 bombers.(Overall 892)[1]
Germany: Estimated total number of destroyed and damaged for the war totaled 116,875 aircraft, of which 70,000 were total losses and the remainder significantly damaged. By type, losses totaled 41,452 fighters, 22,037 bombers, 15,428 trainers, 10,221 twin-engine fighters, 5,548 ground attack, 6,733 reconnaissance, and 6,141 transports.[1]
Italy: Total losses were 5,272 aircraft, of which 3,269 were lost in combat.
Japan: Estimates vary from 35,000 to 50,000 total losses, with about 20,000 lost operationally.[2]
Netherlands: Total losses were 81 aircraft during the May, 1940 campaign.[2]
Poland: Total losses were 398 destroyed, including 116 fighters, 112 dive bombers, 81 reconnaissance aircraft, 36 bombers, 21 sea planes, and 9 transports.[2]
Soviet Union: Total losses were over 106,400 including 88,300 combat types.[3]
United Kingdom: Total losses in Europe were 22,010, including 10,045 fighters and 11,965 bombers. (This figure does not include aircraft lost in Asia or the Pacific.)[2]
United States: Total losses were nearly 45,000, including 22,951 operational losses (18,418 in Europe and 4,533 in the Pacific).[2]
Ooohhkaaaay, now that we have all this stuff figured out, why is the spit16 in game when it didnt reeeealy see combat? (maybe it had too many flaws or caught fire or somethin?) ;)
AND WHY CANT WE HAVE THE GREAT GERMAN FLAGSHIP BIG BOMBER, THE HE-177?!?!?! Give the luft a BIG BANG BANG bomber toy!!! :salute
Reeeealy, I don't dislike England. I do dislike the players that spam 'spitty ruled' and 'and all luftwaffe suxed' I dislike LIARS!!!
Sources! <--- required for when making statements by the way!!!
-
Can we stop the BS?
Luftwaffe Order of Battle 9 April 1945
Serviceable Aircraft Strengths
Single-engined fighters 1305
Night fighters 485
Ground-attack aircraft 712
Night harassment aircraft 215
Multi-engined bombers 37
Long-range reconaissance aircraft 143
Short-range and army cooperation aircraft 309
Coastal aircraft 45
Transport aircraft 10
Misc. aircraft (KG 200) 70
Total 3331
Either way, seems the luft was handing the world their behinds!
Since the revisonist likes Wiki,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_production_during_World_War_II
German produced 94,622 a/c and only had 3,331 a/c almost at the end.
Who was kicking whose butt?
-
You will fit in very nicely on this board Werra, http://kurfurst.org/
-
Has Barbi re-registered? It would appear so with the amout of revisionist history being spewed.
That would be my guess or schlowy being allowed back in the forums.
ack-ack
-
Knickebein (crease leg) (reffered to as 'Headache' by England):
Germany's radio navigation during Battle for Britain.
From wikipedia.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knickebein_(navigation)
see "search for the beams section"
Sceptics started regarding the system as proof that the German pilots were not as good as their own, who they believed could do without such systems. It was Lindemann himself who proved this wrong, when his "photoflash" systems started returning photographs of the RAF bombing raids, showing that they were rarely, if ever, anywhere near their targets. <-- lol better than RAF bombers!
and see "counter measure section" (reffered to as 'Aspirin' by England)
The British broadcasters were later modified to broadcast their dots at the same time the German transmitters would, making it impossible to tell which signal was which. In this case the navigators would receive the equi-signal over a wide area, and navigation along the bombline became impossible, with the aircraft drifting into the "dash area" and no way to correct for it.
England was capable of manipulating the Luftwaffe Bombers navigation system, and either by accident or on purpose, caused London to get bombed! I'm sure England's radio broadcasts to the world did not mention 'aspirin'!!!
RAF tricked Luftwaffe bombers into bombing London, and the next night RAF bombed Berlin. The bombing of cities instead of military targets saved England during the Battle for Britain, and HENCE BEGAN THE BATTLE AGAINST CITES and CIVILIANS BEGAN!!!
See 'phases of wikipedia's Battle of Britain section, August 23rd, 24th,25th, and how cities were previously off limits by the fuhrer himself.
German Bombsites and Accuracy:
Durinig the Battle for Britain, a new upgraded Ju-88 was downed and captured intact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Graveney_Marsh
On 27 September, British Supermarine Spitfire and Hawker Hurricane fighter planes from No. 66 and No. 92 Squadron RAF attacked what they recognized as a new variant of Junkers 88 over Faversham. An order had been issued to them to capture one such aircraft intact if possible.[1] One of the bomber's engines had already been damaged by anti-aircraft fire during a raid on London and the Spitfires were able to destroy its remaining engine, forcing the pilot to make a crash landing on Graveney Marsh.
Captain John Cantopher succeeded in disarming a demolition charge which enabled the bomber, which was equipped with a new and very accurate type of bombsight, to be captured for examination by British experts. The aircraft was taken to Farnborough Airfield where it was said to have "provided highly valuable information".[1] Cantopher was subsequently awarded the George Medal for his action.[3][4][5]
I do not know the name of this bombsite type, still, uhh, yeaah, Luftwaffe Bombers were capable of hitting a target!
This was 1940, so uhh, yeah too, I'm sure that by 1942, let alone 1944, the He-177 would have an accurate site also.
Oh, and no bombers had the accuracy afforded to bomber planes in our game!
-
Schlowy, go away.
GO AWAY!
GO AWAY!
JUST ... GO ... AWAY ... !!!
-
Heard of Guernica? If i recall correctly, that wasn't the RAF.
-
Heard of Guernica? If i recall correctly, that wasn't the RAF.
1) Go read about Guernica instead of making general statements about propaganda events.
2) Stop feeding the troll!
-
...
-
1) Go read about Guernica instead of making general statements about propaganda events.
You should read about the bombings of Madrid in 1936 by the Condor Legion and the bombings of Malaga civilian refugees in 1937. I'm sure you'll find some revisionist spin to explain it away, will be amusing to see how you spin it.
ack-ack
-
You should read about the bombings of Madrid in 1936 by the Condor Legion and the bombings of Malaga civilian refugees in 1937. I'm sure you'll find some revisionist spin to explain it away, will be amusing to see how you spin it.
ack-ack
Revisionist? Me?
Where did you get that dumb idea?
-
Franz scares the S out of me.
'get in that wagon, you'll be back in a couple weeks'
-
Ack-Ack and Jag88...
6 August 1914, a German Zeppelin bombed the Belgian city of Liège. 22 September 1914, Royal Naval Air Service bombed Cologne and Düsseldorf.
If you're arguing who started it you've got your heads in the wrong war.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-2008-0051%2C_Frankreich%2C_Bombardierung_Calais.jpg)
-
Ack-Ack and Jag88...
6 August 1914, a German Zeppelin bombed the Belgian city of Liège. 22 September 1914, Royal Naval Air Service bombed Cologne and Düsseldorf.
If you're arguing who started it you've got your heads in the wrong war.
No argument with that, I was just pointing out that Guernica was an event blown out for propaganda purposes for both sides.
Discussions on "evilness" tend to be futile.
-
No-one starts this kind of stuff; only people end it.
Thats not by winning a war or being forced to surrender, its by knowing that it is the right thing to do and not letting it happen, no matter what.
No excuses, no reasons, no explanations...