Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: hazed- on October 16, 2000, 01:18:00 AM
-
If i remember correctly HTC decided to bow to B26/b17 pilots who were complaining that they were underpowered in the gun department and upped the lethality of the guns...
Im not sure what they did but lots of people found it was suddenly impossible to kill them.well things seem tohave settled down and they seem to be set at a good level for B17s/b26's now ...maybe their guns a little too good but i like the way they are now because it means you have to plan your attack! everyone is happy (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Well since 1.04 Ive been flying the JU88 and i think its a fantastic plane BUT were the guns on ju88 really that weak? I have hit attacking planes many times and hardly scratched them and its got to the stage now where i know ive got very little chance compared to a gunner on the other bombers.the problem is i want to fly LW.I realise the guns are different and LW were not as powerful but in the interest of play balance, much like b26/b17 pilots had, I am requesting the ju88 guns be made just a little stronger.
anyone else agree?..please remember i love the ju88 as much as you Americans love your b26's etc and im sure Lanc pilots would appreciate something similar.( also the specs for ju88a4 in concise guide to axis aircraft state they had 1 forward firing mg81 plus one forward firing 13mm MG 131 in front and ah doesnt (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif) )
If the guns cant be changed maybe JU88 should be a little more robust and take slightly more damage.As it is now an attacker can fly 600 off my six and ignore my shots (almost) and perform what is really a poor attack and get a kill.
shouldnt it be the same as for other bombers and require a good/well executed attack?
I have to stress i dont mind being shot down in ju88 but not when ive put 150 rounds into my attacker (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) please reward me a little more for hitting an opponent with my guns (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Thnx hazed
fire away people!
-
Ju-88 A-4 actually has 7.92mm ventral gun replaced with 13mm
Though, there is A-4 versions with 20mm cannon fitted in the nose, was it below the bombadier (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Scenario :P
-
"If i remember correctly HTC decided to bow to B26/b17 pilots who were complaining that they were underpowered in the gun department and upped the lethality of the guns..."
Nope, never happened.
-
Yes they did Juzz, the .50 cal's on the B26/B17 have increased range. I has been posted.
ts
-
tshred, its not the guns of the B17/B26
Every gunner in the game is the same in that respect.
B17,B256, Lanc, Ju88, M16, Ostie, Panzer, they all are like that.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
To directly address one point of your argument-
Yes, the 7.62mm would be that weak compared to the .50's. Further, the B-17 can point six of them at you if you make a sloppy approach, whereas the Ju88 might get two of its guns on you at once. No contest, the B-17 wins hands-down.
We all know that the Ju88 was designed as a "schnell bomber", where speed would be its primary defense. I am all for adding more armament to it in the form of later marks (which of course was planned from the start), but I would want a coresponding increase in the weight, along with a deterioration of its performance.
-
Find me a photo of a Ju 88A-4 with flex-mount MG 131 in the nose or in the aft ventral mount. I think it's another William Green fantasy...
-
Originally posted by funked:
Find me a photo of a Ju 88A-4 with flex-mount MG 131 in the nose or in the aft ventral mount. I think it's another William Green fantasy...
That ventral 13mm gun is in many sources that I've read of.
Late production A-4 had this factory installed, while early production consisted of 7.92mm package. (and we know A-4 was in production for fairly long time)
-
How many of those sources copied straight out of Green's book, just like the MG 151 in Me 109 cowling?
-
Originally posted by funked:
How many of those sources copied straight out of Green's book, just like the MG 151 in Me 109 cowling?
Excuse me, but why are you talking about him when it is me talking?
I don't know anything about ME109 having MG151 in the cowling..
I might have heard of 15mm 'cannon' being installed into the cowling, but that was more likely into Fw190D.
We're not talking of fighters here, it is about Ju-88 and I am certain that those had 13mm in the back of the cockpit in later produced versions (and field conversion kits)
I don't know anything about greens book so why don't you, with all the respect, shut up?
-
ok guys i wasnt trying to stir up debate on the validity of our sources of info ... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
mainly i wanted to address the fact that when i gun a b17 in ah its easy to kill if you hit..pretty similar in b26...then theres the ju88 which even when i hit attacker LOADS of times i rarely cause much damage or if i do i normally use 2/3rds of my ammo (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
all i want is a bit more reward for good gunning against poor attacks.
I am a paying customer like everyone else and i choose/prefer LW planes mostly so please dont make it a real pain to survive in them,after all i pay £20 a month to have fun in here (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
p.s. kieren just a little more power in guns ..not much ...just if i hit with 100+rounds i feel i deserve some reward (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
hazed (thanks for input guys)
btw are we sure increased range applies to all vehicles/planes mentioned by vermillion?
[This message has been edited by hazed- (edited 10-17-2000).]
-
HI
The sad thing is the Ju88 is prolly the only bomber in the sim previously called AH, whose firepower is accurately portrayed. The "50cals" on allied bombers seem to be something in the 20mm range in hit performamnce. And the old excuse that buff guns were so strong cuz 6 or 8 "50cals" hit you at once, doesnt hold up anymore. Just give the lancaster rear turret with 2 supposed "50cals" a second or two and ull see. It just plain sucks. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
-
cc grunhertz
people seem to forget 0.50-in is just 12.7mm MG
LW MG131 is a 13mm MG
Id love to see data showing the difference in these 2 MG's.
also LW 30mm had exploding shells i beleive and i have read that 1 round could totally destroy an aircraft.Anyone ever read same description about hispano's? and why? because they were not as remarkable as that deadly 30mm round.
<gulp> here comes the flame (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Hazed
-
Talking of Lancaster versus Ju-88 A-4, it is interesting that Lancaster has 2x.50 cal tail turret version instead of more regular 4x.303 turret.
..while Ju-88 A-4 has all 7.92mm, with no possibility for 13mm
-
Fishu (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) i think you are thinking what im thinking heheh
Raw deal for LW again (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
hazed JG2
[This message has been edited by hazed- (edited 10-17-2000).]
-
Browning M2 .50in: 12.7x99(48.5g), 870m/s, 750rpm
MG 131 13mm: 13x64B(34.6g), 730m/s, 900rpm
If you figure out the kinetic energy, you will find that the US .50in has almost twice the energy of the German 13mm. In Aces High, testing versus a fighter hanger shows the German round does about 80% of the damage the US round does.
-
I believe MG 131 used 13mm HE rounds as well as other types.
-
Juzz,
Little side note in here, even though I don't know who you're talking..
just sticked in my eye..
I don't qualify hangar testings as reliable source, because it doesn't get damaged like plane..
With plane, you have also penetration counted, so that one bullet should and could break more than just one part, depending on weapon and armour.. and.. (well, you got the point, no need to be that scientific)
-
Fishu, that's a clever strategy you use. Someone questions your information and you tell them shut up. I'm sure this will be really convincing to Pyro.
If Ju 88A-4 really had MG 131 in some cases, I would love to see it. I'm trying to learn about it but finding very little convincing evidence of its existence.
Here is what William Green says (Warplanes of the Third Reich):
Pilot: MG 81
Bombardier: 1 x MG 131 or 2 x MG 81
Aft Canopy: 2 x MG 81
Aft Gondola: 1 x MG 131 or 2 x MG 81
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-17-2000).]
-
The source is reliable, only the uselfulness of the data can be questioned.
One thing it does show however is that the MG 131 round does more damage than just it's KE would suggest -> they must be modelled as HE rounds?
I've read Eric Brown, he said the Ju 88A-5 he flew had a MG 131 in the rear cockpit, and another one in the gondola. Also, a twin MG 81Z in the bomb-aimers position, firing forward, and a pilot-operated fixed/free mount MG 81.
But of course, Eric Brown also said the Fw 190A-4 only did 394mph, and the He 219 sucked, so his reliability is highly questionable and this information must be ignored.
-
Originally posted by funked:
Fishu, that's a clever strategy you use. Someone questions your information and you tell them shut up. I'm sure this will be really convincing to Pyro.
If Ju 88A-4 really had MG 131 in some cases, I would love to see it. I'm trying to learn about it but finding very little convincing evidence of its existence.
Here is what William Green says (Warplanes of the Third Reich):
Pilot: MG 81
Bombardier: 1 x MG 131 or 2 x MG 81
Aft Canopy: 2 x MG 81
Aft Gondola: 1 x MG 131 or 2 x MG 81
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-17-2000).]
For the truth, you're getting to be annoying with your all-knowing acting.
You're 90% of the time against that what I tell and requiring for some pentagon sized file database to be read so that you finally believe other sources than your 'gods handbook'.
for gods sake, I am not going to talk about things without knowing a bit.
What I don't really know, I don't talk about or I will tell that I am not sure of it.
You always talk about agreeing in way "I'd love to see", but still you're talking like some all-knowing god, which you most certainly aren't because you're here with among us.
-
Sorry, after doing a lot of research on Fw 190 I am very skeptical about claims for German aircraft.
There is a lot of incorrect information in books and many authors have assumed certain equipment to have been in full production when it was a prototype only, or didn't even exist. If HTC used everything they read in any book as "proof" that something existed or performed in a certain way, we would have a ridiculous sim.
I think if MG 131 were actually mounted on a Ju 88A-4 there would be a photo somewhere. I hope to find it.
That's all. I don't pretend to know everything. But when other people say that something is certain, when it is not certain, I will tell them. I expect other people to do the same in return.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-17-2000).]
-
ok i have finally got annoyed with you funcked!
you say that some sources of information are dubious as to their accuracy but what may i ask makes you think your source of information is any better? I have loads of books on axis and allied planes from the technical to the 'boys books' from childhood
and a typical example of ju88a4 armament 99% of the time agrees with the configeration you stated 'william green' quoted.
Are you telling me they are all lieing because you refuse to believe the LW had such good weapons? WHY do you think the world trembled when they ravaged europe for gods sake?
I suggest you read about the history of small arms and see if you can find a book that does not mention German weapons.they are still among the finest firearms in the world.I am NOT german and i despise what germany stood for during WW2(history) BUT! if you claim the LW guns were not as good as they say they were you are distorting our best recollection of the events.
I suggest you find a WW2 air veteran and tell him LW guns were not as powerful as they now claim..tell him he had the advantage in guns etc and you reduce/detract from the bravery of allied pilots who fought against a war machine of extreme power and technological prowess which the allies had no idea they might win against.My grandmother often tells me of the real fear of germany because of its seemingly invinsible nature.you dont get much of a sense of this in AH (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) .If you find it hard to kill enemy planes that perform extremely well just maybe you are getting a brief glimse into what it was really like?.I get the feeling in AH that all american planes seem to be top models of their type.F4uc a typical example!(see other thread by yeager)whilst axis get a seemingly raw deal.perhaps the american players want to fly their planes at advantage all the time?.Id rather see what the real differences were.
I am not here to listen to your ramblings about who 'you' think is wrong or right,I prefer to read litrature from those that were there thanks.I am merely asking for a 'balance' in bombers armament in a GAME!
after all i doubt many f4uc's shot down ju88's in RL.
hazed JG2
[This message has been edited by hazed- (edited 10-17-2000).]
-
sorry double post
btw sorry funcked but i blew my top. i have flown with/against you and have no hard feelings (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by hazed- (edited 10-17-2000).]
-
Hazed don't sweat it. I think you are confusing me with somebody else. I am not making any claims about the quality of German guns.
Just wondering about the defensive armament configuration on the Ju 88A-4 - why the photographs of wartime planes and existing aircraft in museums don't match what Green and some authors say. If you can find comment on this subject by "those that were there" I would love to hear it.
I hope we can find some photographic evidence or at least some schematics that will help HTC to model it. I'm pretty sure that finding a mention of it in a book is not enough. HTC has higher standards of proof than that, no matter what country built the airplane.
-
PS if you think MG 81 and MG 131 had the same punch as a Browning M2 .50 cal, you're looney. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
But I agree that Ju 88 should have the strongest possible defensive armament that can be justified historically.
-
Am I looney to think that the AH M2 in buffs should have the same effect as the real 50cal? Just compare the destructive effect of the twin 50cal turret on a lanc and a P51 when the 4 outside 50cals run out. Then tell me that the buff 50cals arent 20mms of some sort.
-
If you want to start a thread whining about the strength of B-17 guns, go do that. I'll probably back you up. But I thought this was a thread about Ju 88 guns?
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-17-2000).]
-
You brought it up funked. Thats all (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by GRUNHERZ (edited 10-17-2000).]
-
Doh! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
I know that the B-17G and B-26 get a gun range boost to help negate net lag effects. I ASSUME the Ju 88 gets the same boost. If it doesn't, it should!!!
-
Folks, just because a history book says it happened doesn't mean it happened.
There are plenty of textbooks out there that claim Columbus ran into opposition from people who believed the Earth was flat. That's a flat-out lie.
Similarly with these books on the second world war. If somebody claims something occurred, it has to be DOCUMENTED. If someone says "the JU88 had MG131S" fine -- show us the evidence: show us the procurement inforamtion, field installation notes, captured aircraft information, a photograph, something. Then we can talk about changing it.
But to go out on the basis of some secondary source written by someone who doesn't tell you where he got that silly idea from is frankly bad history. Go check out the pretty pictures at www.luftwafferesourcegroup.org, (http://www.luftwafferesourcegroup.org,) and read their loadout descriptions. Did it all happen that way?
-
We seem ready to go to war over whether the thing had 2 pathetic 7.92s or 2 pathetic 13mm
If it was all 13mm it would be .3 the defence of the b26. 4 / 11 X 0.8
As it is it is probably 1/10th the defence of the b26.
Of course it is slower. Carries less bombs. Has poor fire arc protection.
Looks great.
These things were forced to bomb at night by Spit mk1s armed with only 303s.
Maybe if they had had a single 13mm in the nose they would have wiped the RAF out in Sept 1940..
Ive got a picture of one with a 75mm Pak in the nose though Funked.. Wana see it?
-
Oh I got pics of that Pongo!!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Torpedoes too. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Hi
LOL Pongo how true. But some of the German bombers were pretty damn tuff when it came to .303 fire. This BoB book I looked at at my college library told of a Do17 or Ju88 that was attacked by a large number of Spitfires which expended over 7,000 rounds without killing the bomber, which returend safely to France. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
thanks GRUNHERZ
-
Just went to the local hobby shop and saw 3 enhanced nose armement shots of Ju88 a4s.
2 of them had mgffs
1 of them had an extra mg15.
-
I'm scanning some stuff and will do a Ju 88A-4 armament thread extravaganza next week. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)