Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: ToeTag on August 12, 2009, 11:28:33 AM
-
We have a JU-87D in the game why in the heck do we not have the 37mm option in the hanger? These versions of the 87D were converted to carry the 37 mm flak. If that is insufficent then why dont we have the G variant. Great bird that can easily kill any tank in the game. It is an equal to the IL-2 at tank busting. Both guns have the same capacity to penetrate 110 mm of armor. Secondly, if these guns can penetrate that much armor why is it so hard to blow tanks up. Side shots should mean fairly easy kills since these rounds were more effective @ 90 degrees than at an angle. Is the modeling off?
-
It is an equal to the IL-2 at tank busting.
Why not just fly the IL-2, then?
-
Visibility stinks in il2 (I dont fly in f3 mode)
87 is a smaller target
87 is better in slow flight (less tree/ground augers)
87 has a better rate of climb
It would be a simple addition to the game (if added to the D model)
-
87 is a smaller target
87 is better in slow flight (less tree/ground augers)
The Ju 87 is not really a smaller target. Wingspan 15m with wing area 33.6mē. length 11m Il-2 has wingspan 14,6m, wing area 38mē, length 11.65m
(http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/740/comparisonasl.jpg)
And furthermore, the 87 is a much move vulnerabe target than a Il-2
I also doubt the 87G has that better flight performance at low level. Power/mass ratio isn't any better than the il-2m3
-
The Ju 87 is not really a smaller target. Wingspan 15m with wing area 33.6mē. length 11m Il-2 has wingspan 14,6m, wing area 38mē, length 11.65m
And furthermore, the 87 is a much move vulnerabe target than a Il-2
On top of that now add the weight of the 37mm and shells.
-
Why not just fly the IL-2, then?
Historically the JU-87s destroy a tons of tank on the eastern front.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Ulrich_Rudel
"According to official Luftwaffe figures, Rudel flew some 2,530 combat missions (a world record)[Notes 2], during which he destroyed almost 2,000 ground targets (among them 519 tanks, 70 assault craft/landing boats, 150 self-propelled guns, 4 armored trains, and 800 other vehicles; as well as 9 planes (2 Il-2's and 7 fighters). He also sank a battleship, two cruisers and a destroyer. He was never shot down by another pilot, only by anti-aircraft artillery. He was shot down or forced to land 32 times, several times behind enemy lines."
Mostly in Stuka
-
The 87G is a badass. This one has been well covered in the wishlist category of the BBS IIRC. HTC has got to know we want it by now.
along w/
Yak3
He111
Beaufighter
B29 wit teh n00k
Bf109 G 10
P61
etc etc
LOL! :x
-
Yak3
Can I get a hell yeah? :rock
-
(http://milehighpolitics.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/moving-van.jpg)
See you guys in the wishlist. :D
-
ok ju87 had better wing loading than il-2
-Wing loading is more critical in turning than power / mass
-power to mass is for climb ratios
When flying at low alts and slowly it would handle better, maybe not by much, but when close to the ground it may be enough to keep you alive.
I was wrong about rate of climb based on stats but I think the posted numbers are incorrect based on the games modeling.
In game I get about 1000 ft / minute. (87)
Posted results are 750 ft / min for D and G models (factual)
il-2 about 2000 ft / min (never see this in game - this is for the 23mm version not 37mm with 120 rounds)
Origional post is not for a wish but for a discussion based on why do we not have 37mm for the D model currently in the game? Especially since it played a major role in the war.
The Ju 87 is not really a smaller target. Wingspan 15m with wing area 33.6mē. length 11m Il-2 has wingspan 14,6m, wing area 38mē, length 11.65m
(http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/740/comparisonasl.jpg)
And furthermore, the 87 is a much move vulnerabe target than a Il-2
I also doubt the 87G has that better flight performance at low level. Power/mass ratio isn't any better than the il-2m3
um im looking at more wing area on both tail and main wing.
the converted D and then the G were up armored versions.
-
This has been asked many times and we never do get a official answer.I`d sure like to see it!
-
Only reason I want it is for a 'Kursk' Scenario.
-
Visibility stinks in il2 (I dont fly in f3 mode)
87 is a smaller target
87 is better in slow flight (less tree/ground augers)
87 has a better rate of climb
It would be a simple addition to the game (if added to the D model)
You are going to be sorely disappointed if you think the Ju87G-1/G-2 will maneuver the as the current D-3 version we have, especially at low speeds. And if you can't kill a tank with the current IL2, you're not going to suddenly become a experten GV killer in a G-1.
ack-ack
-
I love how people slowly get off topic.
I can kill tanks in the hurri IID as well as the IL-2
-I never mentioned that I had a problem in doing so
It is an equal to the IL-2 at tank busting. Both guns have the same capacity to penetrate 110 mm of armor. Secondly, if these guns can penetrate that much armor why is it so hard to blow tanks up. Side shots should mean fairly easy kills since these rounds were more effective @ 90 degrees than at an angle. Is the modeling off?
What I meant by hard is that if your at 90 degrees to the armor, then 110 mm of penatrating power should easily penetrate 51 mm of armor. Should only take one or two shots not the 5 it normally takes. In other words if you hit the tank with rounds things should break more often at a minimum. At best they shold blow up.
Secondly the 87D and G are closley matched in weight when loaded out. Of couse they are going to fly similarly. The only time they will not is when the D is empty (no ord). At this point I will be heading home anyway. They are tank busters. If ord is out at a base then the 37 mm would be nice to have on the D model as an option. It will out perform the hurri IID's "S" gun in armor penetration.
-
"According to official Luftwaffe figures, Rudel flew some 2,530 combat missions (a world record)[Notes 2], during which he destroyed almost 2,000 ground targets (among them 519 tanks, 70 assault craft/landing boats, 150 self-propelled guns, 4 armored trains, and 800 other vehicles; as well as 9 planes (2 Il-2's and 7 fighters). He also sank a battleship, two cruisers and a destroyer. He was never shot down by another pilot, only by anti-aircraft artillery. He was shot down or forced to land 32 times, several times behind enemy lines."
Read his book, Stuka Pilot, as a kid.
Grudgingly, I have to admit the goose stepping Nazi had brass.
-
JU-87 wasn't a designated "tank buster"...it was actually a "dive bomber" that was brought into production before the war to replace an antiquated WWI era plane the Germans reverse engineered from a U.S. WWI era dive bomber. At the beginning of WWII the Germans had air superiority so there was no reason to develop a better dive bomber or long range strategic bombers...it wasn't until they ran into the Russians that the true weakness's of the Stuka were found. It was still heavily used for close air support and short range precision bombing until the end of the war.
Would be cool to have the higest production variants with something besides massive bomb loadouts...as much fun as it is taking one on a low level run...having the tank buster configurations would be very very nice.
Think we can bribe HTC into at least giving us the options in hangar?
-
it wasn't until they ran into the Russians that the true weakness's of the Stuka were found. It was still heavily used for close air support and short range precision bombing until the end of the war.
I would say that the Luftwaffe found out the shortcomings of the Ju 87 about a year earlier than that... the Stuka actually did comparatively well on the Eastern Front.
I would love the have the Ju 87G with those huge cannons... blast the hell out of spawncampers and read their heartwarming 200 whines! Muahahaha....
-
JU-87 wasn't a designated "tank buster"...it was actually a "dive bomber" that was brought into production before the war to replace an antiquated WWI era plane the Germans reverse engineered from a U.S. WWI era dive bomber. At the beginning of WWII the Germans had air superiority so there was no reason to develop a better dive bomber or long range strategic bombers...it wasn't until they ran into the Russians that the true weakness's of the Stuka were found. It was still heavily used for close air support and short range precision bombing until the end of the war.
Would be cool to have the higest production variants with something besides massive bomb loadouts...as much fun as it is taking one on a low level run...having the tank buster configurations would be very very nice.
Think we can bribe HTC into at least giving us the options in hangar?
The G variant was a designated tank killer, that was the sole purpose behind the G.
ack-ack
-
The G variant was a designated tank killer, that was the sole purpose behind the G.
ack-ack
:aok
-
I thought the Luftwaffe relised how under powered the stukka was after the BOB, and then moved them to the eastern front?
-
What I meant by hard is that if your at 90 degrees to the armor, then 110 mm of penatrating power should easily penetrate 51 mm of armor. Should only take one or two shots not the 5 it normally takes. In other words if you hit the tank with rounds things should break more often at a minimum. At best they shold blow up.
Secondly the 87D and G are closley matched in weight when loaded out. Of couse they are going to fly similarly. The only time they will not is when the D is empty (no ord). At this point I will be heading home anyway. They are tank busters. If ord is out at a base then the 37 mm would be nice to have on the D model as an option. It will out perform the hurri IID's "S" gun in armor penetration.
The reason nothing is damaged is because you didn't hit anything critical during that penetration.
-
it wasn't until they ran into the Russians that the true weakness's of the Stuka were found. It was still heavily used for close air support and short range precision bombing until the end of the war.
The weaknesses of the Stuka became glaringly apparent during the Battle of Britain. The BoB exposed the Stuka's poor maneuverability, slow speed and lack of adequate defensive firepower and to be effective, it pretty much required the Luftwaffe to have tactical air superiority to ensure the Stukas could make it to their target.
After the BoB, the Ju 87 did experience a second successful period in combat operations in the Balkans, Eastern Front and the MTO. For the most part, it was successful in these area of operations because the opposing air forces in the region were disorganized for the most part. In the MTO, it enjoyed relative success early on because at the time, Allied aircraft were '2nd tier' and when the Allied air forces started to receive better aircraft (Spitfires, Mustangs, Lightnings) and gained more control of the skies, the success of the Stuka dropped dramatically. The same in the Eastern Front in the early stages when the Soviet air force was mostly made up of obsolete aircraft and poor training, however, that soon changed when the Soviets started to field better planes and air crews and once again the Ju 87 became easy prey to fighters if unescorted.
Pretty much after the D-3 variant (that's when the dive brakes were removed) the Ju 87 stopped being a precision dive bomber and was pretty much delegated to the ground attack role with the Gustav being fielded as a dedicated tank buster.
ack-ack
-
Exempting the stuka when ord is out at a base would be a quick and easy way of getting more people flying it. The gameplay of the MA is simply not suited to flying a bomb armed stuka in its ww2 role, 99% of the time you'll find yourself having to ditch your bombs before you get to your target, avoid that attack and you've got to regain all the alt you lost by which time the cycle repeats itself.
I doubt a lot of people would fly the cannon bird when theres an IL2 sitting there with a lot more cannon.
-
you're not going to suddenly become a experten GV killer in a G-1.
(http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo237/grizz441/poster34992553.jpg)
-
The Ju 87 is not really a smaller target. Wingspan 15m with wing area 33.6mē. length 11m Il-2 has wingspan 14,6m, wing area 38mē, length 11.65m
(http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/740/comparisonasl.jpg)
And furthermore, the 87 is a much move vulnerabe target than a Il-2
I also doubt the 87G has that better flight performance at low level. Power/mass ratio isn't any better than the il-2m3
Come on, Lusche.
The Stuka is so much cooler looking. :devil
-
I love ths stuka...from time to time I fly out to dive bomb something :D... the stuka is 10/10 in cool factor :D
-
Exempting the stuka when ord is out at a base would be a quick and easy way of getting more people flying it. The gameplay of the MA is simply not suited to flying a bomb armed stuka in its ww2 role, 99% of the time you'll find yourself having to ditch your bombs before you get to your target, avoid that attack and you've got to regain all the alt you lost by which time the cycle repeats itself.
I doubt a lot of people would fly the cannon bird when theres an IL2 sitting there with a lot more cannon.
I assume you mean rounds per gun? Both 37 MM guns are equal in penetration. Not sure what direction your going with the first sentence. I hope you mean more people will fly it if it is available for tank busting with no ord at a base. It is comparable to the Hurri IID in round capcity. It will carry 24 rounds as opposed to the 30 the Hurri carries.
Ack Ack is obviously a historian. But your last post is not relevant here. Based on the statistics anyone can see it would be a valid implement for anyone in attack mode for AH.
I would say that the Luftwaffe found out the shortcomings of the Ju 87 about a year earlier than that... the Stuka actually did comparatively well on the Eastern Front.
I would love the have the Ju 87G with those huge cannons... blast the hell out of spawncampers and read their heartwarming 200 whines! Muahahaha....
:aok
The reason nothing is damaged is because you didn't hit anything critical during that penetration.
This is for another thread. Perhaps you can name it how ToeTag can get more GV kills. :O
The guns weren't syncronised and the Soviets themselves found out that in order for the guns to be remotely succesfull, they should be syncronized and muzzle breaks should be installed to reduce recoil. In Soviet studies it was found that 52% of the hits with the NS-37 rendered a medium tank out of service, and 73% of hits did the same for a light tank. However, hits were only scored on 43% of combat sorties and the ratio of hits to ammunition spent totalled 3%. To destroy a heavy tank like a Tiger the turret roof or the engine compartment had to be hit from an angle of 45-50 degree. The was something majority of the IL-2 pilots could not do.
Just a sidenote...
IL-2 3Ms (NS-37 armed m3s) were first fielded in the august of '43. Total of 96 NS-37 armed IL-2s made combat sorties during these service tests. The pilots who took part of these service trials stated that the aircraft armed with the NS-37s had worse maneuverability and controllability and that those facts made counterflak maneuvers, attack runs and aiming more difficult. The same pilots thought that despite the high efficiency of the NS-37 an IL-2 armed with them was not superior to the VYs-23 armed aircraft as far as combat cababilities were concerned.
As a result of these unfavourable experiences during these service trials on 12th November '43 the State Defence Commitee ordered the series production of the NS-37 armed IL-2 to be terminated.
(Source: ILJUSIN Il-2, ILYUSHIN IL-2 ATTACK AIRCRAFT by Oleg Rastrenin, ISBN 978-80-87161-02-9)
So it was used in combat on service trials only and the trials proved to be unsuccesful and the production was terminated. When compared to the other planes/loadouts there are in AH, it's IMO pretty clear that the NS-37 loadout for IL-2 is hardly AH-material. Wether Pyro was aware of these facts when he implemeted the loadout for AH I'm not sure.
Found this in another thread. Used in combat trials only?
87G and D Conversion were used more than il-2 with 37mm and with greater success. What the...... :furious
-
(http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo237/grizz441/poster34992553.jpg)
didn't catch that earlier. :rofl
-
Ack Ack is obviously a historian.
No, just a big fan of the Ju 87.
ack-ack
-
Anyone from HTC have input as to why we don't have this?
-
Anyone from HTC have input as to why we don't have this?
Not high enough on the priority list?
So many things to add, so little time?
You rarely get answers on questions like this, probably because they never end.... "Why no B-29? Why no Do 217? Why no Mig-3?... Why no (insert hundreds of planes and vehicles here) ;)
-
you dont have to add a new plane just the cannon. Seems like a simple thing to do instead of modeling a whole new plane.
-
Whats your in game name Toe?
You must be a real GV terror to fly one of the worst airplanes view-wise, IL2, without resorting to F3 like the rest of us smelly serfs.
-
you dont have to add a new plane just the cannon. Seems like a simple thing to do instead of modeling a whole new plane.
If they did that they would Re-do the graphics for said plane...
-
Whats your in game name Toe?
You must be a real GV terror to fly one of the worst airplanes view-wise, IL2, without resorting to F3 like the rest of us smelly serfs.
Dingbat
If you adjust your head views and save them by hitting F10 it does get better. Rear still stinks.
-
but it couldent carry bombs that was the problem... :uhoh
-
That might be a new ford vs chevy argument :aok