Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: kilo2 on May 09, 2012, 02:43:26 PM
-
Cool now we have a tank busting stuka on the way. :O
Can't wait for it.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/News/Announcements/ju-87-stuka-screenshots.html
-
The planes get better looking each update!
Nice job to everyone at HTC! :rock
-
:x
General lack of knowledge question here, but does it carry the giant bomb the other one does?
Field defense when the FHs drop is gonna get a lot more interesting...
Wiley.
-
G model :rock
-
Very nice. Will be interesting to see how the Ju87G-2 fairs compared to the Il-2M3. Better guns, but less ammo and more vulnerable.
Wiley,
No, the G-2 will not carry the large bomb of the D-3.
-
Very nice. Will be interesting to see how the Ju87G-2 fairs compared to the Il-2M3. Better guns, but less ammo and more vulnerable.
Wiley,
No, the G-2 will not carry the large bomb of the D-3.
Darn... Ah well, still looking forward to tank/plane busting with it.
Wiley.
-
Wonder why they decided to model the G-2, which is based on the Ju-87D-5, instead of the G-1 which is based on the current D-3 model we have?
ack-ack
-
Wow looks very nice.
-
:rock :rock :rock :rock :rock
-
Cool looking HTC! I love them new toys! :aok
-
Now that will be fun at the camping grounds. :D
-
Very cool.
-
Wonder why they decided to model the G-2, which is based on the Ju-87D-5, instead of the G-1 which is based on the current D-3 model we have?
ack-ack
Possibility of adding the D5 and 20mm wing guns maybe.
-
:rock
-
Wonder why they decided to model the G-2, which is based on the Ju-87D-5, instead of the G-1 which is based on the current D-3 model we have?
ack-ack
What are the differences of the Ju87G-1 and the Ju87G-2?
-
What are the differences of the Ju87G-1 and the Ju87G-2?
1
-
I shall express my feelings in Midway speak;
:aok :aok :aok :aok
:x :x :x :x
-
oh hell yes, thank you HTC!!!!!!!!!!!!
(http://i1164.photobucket.com/albums/q569/bryguyw/24Ju87.jpg)
-
Thumbs up to HTC and Co. for updating this beloved aircraft! :aok
For those getting all giddy like a little girl with the news of the Stuka G model, be sure and compare the Hurricane IID vs the Stuka G before you celebrate too much. ;) The Hurricane IID is faster, climbs way better, and without even looking at the stats I bet it accelerates far better too.
-
What are the differences of the Ju87G-1 and the Ju87G-2?
Since the G-2 was based on the D-5 airframe, it would have had a 1 foot longer wingspan than the D-3/G-1. It also had a higher diving speed than the G-1.
ack-ack
-
Thumbs up to HTC and Co. for updating this beloved aircraft! :aok
For those getting all giddy like a little girl with the news of the Stuka G model, be sure and compare the Hurricane IID vs the Stuka G before you celebrate too much. ;) The Hurricane IID is faster, climbs way better, and without even looking at the stats I bet it accelerates far better too.
You forgot to add that the Hurricane IID also has a far better chance of surviving a fight against a fighter than the G-2.
ack-ack
-
Possibility of adding the D5 and 20mm wing guns maybe.
Adding the D-5 would make the D-3 a hanger queen.
ack-ack
-
Thumbs up to HTC and Co. for updating this beloved aircraft! :aok
For those getting all giddy like a little girl with the news of the Stuka G model, be sure and compare the Hurricane IID vs the Stuka G before you celebrate too much. ;) The Hurricane IID is faster, climbs way better, and without even looking at the stats I bet it accelerates far better too.
all true, but doesn't the 37mm on the stuka hit harder? even if it doesn't you will still find me behind the controls of the stuka, ripe for the slaughter. :D
-
30 rounds total IIRC, right?
-
Adding the D-5 would make the D-3 a hanger queen.
Well A: D-3 is hanger queen already and B: what problem would it be if D-5 would replace the D-3 as a dive bomber Stuka of choise in the LWA?
Great to see G-2 variant and nice to see Stuka getting updated!
-
30 rounds total IIRC, right?
12 x 37mm rounds ....6 per gun?
-
12 x 37mm rounds ....6 per gun?
2x6 rounds per gun = 24 rounds total
And I'm very curious to see if the very limited impact angle requirement will be modeled as well. If so, I expet a lot of whines ("Should have easily penetrated at that range! HTC is biased against German stuff!") and a small minority of experts being able to kill any tank at will:
(http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/456/hartkern37.jpg)
See how the max penetration at 100m goes down rapidly when approaching an impact angle of 60°
-
Well since the Stuka actually WAS a dive bomber, and will be better able to make diving attacks than the IL-2 or Hurricane IID, I expect that will be less of an issue, than it would be for the IL-2 or IID.
But you're probably right, since the general arena population isn't what you'd call great at analyizing their attack, and breaking the situation down to see what went wrong.
-
quick question for those who know. were the dive flaps removed on the tankbusting setup?
*edit* nevermind, did a little quick research and saw that dive brakes where removed starting with the G-1 variant
-
Snail,
if i see that diagram right, from 600m and with an impact angle of 50 degrees (very poor hit) it still could penetrate a 35mm thick armor.
Thats way thicker than the top of most of the tanks.
Also, with the new GV vis system, you only can see their icon from 730 meters, ergo most shots will be taken from closer ranges.
Wont be as hard to get a kill. Just my theory tho.
-
Snail,
if i see that diagram right, from 600m and with an impact angle of 50 degrees (very poor hit) it still could penetrate a 35mm thick armor.
Thats way thicker than the top of most of the tanks.
Also, with the new GV vis system, you only can see their icon from 730 meters, ergo most shots will be taken from closer ranges.
Wont be as hard to get a kill. Just my theory tho.
You could be right. Can't wait to see how it plays out.
-
Very good news indeed. :cheers:
-
We got trolled again.
Asked for 410. Receive Storch and Stuka. :D :devil :bolt:
-
We got trolled again.
Asked for 410. Receive Storch and Stuka. :D :devil :bolt:
Pfft go ahead and cancel the 410 they can finish it after Stuka
-
So does this mean we'll get the Me-410 in two weeks as well? Maybe they'll put pics of the 410 up tommarow :x :x :x!
-
410 and He-111 :noid
Great video which I am sure alot of us have seen before...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLPchQ2AbUo
-
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x
WOOOOOO HOOOOO!!!!! :banana:
That is a BEAUTIFUL looking plane! Even sexier with the BK 37's under the wings! :x
....and in all that commotion, I may have soiled myself...
-
all we needed was more updating on hangar queens. no dont update the planes flown more.. Tempest, Lancaster,Yak, typhoon etc etc
-
How many of you guys have ever done those fun mission stuka raids to find yourself surviving for awhile at the destination furballing and wishing you had heavier caliber wing guns than 2-7.8mm BB piu, piuers? Chances are with 20mm in the wings some of you would live to fly home with a few scalps or actualy finish de-aking a feild. Thats why you ask for a D5 not the D3 with a new hairdo.
Then you could launch the most irritating raid in the history of the game. Ju87-D5 with 20mm in the wings escorted by Brewsters. Turn your back on the stukas for the brewsters and the 20mm get ya. Or start turning with the stukas and the brewsters hose you coming and going. I could see that as a new FBDred fun mission. The Hot Bratwurst and Finnish Sauna mission. Natrualy the female Fin ground crew will ride rear gunner for the stukas.......
-
all we needed was more updating on hangar queens. no dont update the planes flown more.. Tempest, Lancaster,Yak, typhoon etc etc
Typhoon was updated recently. I never fly the tempest lanc or yak.
Needs more German Iron.
-
HTC are devious bast^&ds! thats a fact, so they don't really sit around drinking beer all day :noid this means there must be more than the ME on the way :noid
Nice addition HTC! :old:
-
I suspect the reason they went for a D-3 is that the D-5's 20mms would be too unbalancing in scenarios. The mg-armed D-3 can do duty for the B and R in early scenarios and unlike the B can carry the big bomb for the MA. The G-1 was only made in very small numbers so the G-2 was the more logical choice. Also the larger wing of the G-2 should make it handle better with those heavy cannons.
From a skinner's POV Waffle designed it so both Stukas share about 90% of their parts on the bmp. Even the wings are in the same positions, you just have to extend the tips on the G.
-
Well gents :salute ... this will great addition to the stable of German Iron..
-
Wonder why they decided to model the G-2, which is based on the Ju-87D-5, instead of the G-1 which is based on the current D-3 model we have?
ack-ack
Perhaps we are getting several models like we did with the P40 update?
-
all we needed was more updating on hangar queens. no dont update the planes flown more.. Tempest, Lancaster,Yak, typhoon etc etc
You'll notice that theres a pattern to updates.
We usually get a GV, a new aircraft and atleast one plane updated.
Starting with the P40 we got an update and several new models. (and giant offroading tires) :D
And I dont see how a tank busting stuka is going to be a hanger queen
-
Yeah, the D-3 will be no more of a hanger queen than it is now. Really the one thing that gets it use is the massive 1800kg bomb. The G-2 won't carry that, so no reason to assume D-3 numbers will suddenly plummet after the update.
-
How does the stuka's cannons compare with the il2 in terms of penetration?
Also are the guns synced?
Edit: Can the G model also carry a bomb with the cannons? I do notice a centerline bomb shackle :noid
-
I think I just found my new fighter.
:rock
-
WTG HTC!!! I'd luv to fly Stuka G! :rock
-
How does the stuka's cannons compare with the il2 in terms of penetration?
Also are the guns synced?
Edit: Can the G model also carry a bomb with the cannons? I do notice a centerline bomb shackle :noid
Guns are synced if I recall correctly and the BK 37's are better than the NS-37's. No, G-2 didn't carry ords with the BK 37's. If you look in the screenshots, the G-2 doesn't have the "sling" on it with the BK 37's equipped. I'm not really sure if it could carry ords at all though. :headscratch:
In the earlier commotion, I discovered a cupcake in my pants...
-
Looks like a cool med/low alt bomber hunter. :)
-
How does the stuka's cannons compare with the il2 in terms of penetration?
They have better penetration than the Il-2's, but the Il-2 has 100 rounds and the Ju87 has 24 rounds. Also the Il-2 is much tougher and more survivable.
Also are the guns synced?
Yes.
Looks like a cool med/low alt bomber hunter. :)
I suspect that most, or all, bombers are faster than the Ju87G-2. Also remember that the 37mm rounds are AP, not HE.
-
Well since the Stuka actually WAS a dive bomber, and will be better able to make diving attacks than the IL-2 or Hurricane IID, I expect that will be less of an issue, than it would be for the IL-2 or IID.
But you're probably right, since the general arena population isn't what you'd call great at analyizing their attack, and breaking the situation down to see what went wrong.
Do some research and find out what the typical angles of attack were for the Il-2, Hurricane IID, and Stuka G. They were far more shallow than you think. The ranges in which the guns were fired were typically INSIDE 400 yards and usually closer to 200 yards. The window of opportunity to fire was very short, hence the desire of a few well placed shots vs spraying and praying. Pilots were not going to dive at a 60° and sharper angle at 250+ miles per hour, fire accurately at 200-400 yards, and pull up in a safe amount of time. Shallow dives were the name of the game. Obviously, what was true in WWII is not in AH.
-
I know the D3 was better, but I kinda wish they'd add the B-2 as well. It would open up the R-2 model as well (DTs outboard on wings instead of 50kg bombs, single centerline bomb) and that square canopy looks very retro compared to the sleek D-3.
Slower, less power than the D, but still I hope they consider adding it (if not with this update, at least sometime down the road).
-
All I can say...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLnWf1sQkjY&ob=av3n (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLnWf1sQkjY&ob=av3n)
-
Looks like a cool med/low alt bomber hunter. :)
I don't think there is a level bomber in the game that is slower than the Ju-87. Waste of time if you intend to use the Ju 87G-2 for that job.
ack-ack
-
I don't think there is a level bomber in the game that is slower than the Ju-87. Waste of time if you intend to use the Ju 87G-2 for that job.
ack-ack
Base defense on low alt bombers comming in, would be about the only way I see them attacking level bombers, unless the 87 is lucky and got alt on some bombers. But again, pretty rare to see it happen I am sure.
(http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Ju-87G-Stuka/Junkers-Ju-87G/images/1-37-mm-Flak-18-cannon-or-Bord-Kanone-3.7-underwing-gondolas-01.jpg)
(http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Ju-87G-Stuka/Junkers-Ju-87G/images/1-37-mm-Flak-18-cannon-or-Bord-Kanone-3.7-underwing-gondolas-02.jpg)
(http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Ju-87G-Stuka/Junkers-Ju-87G/images/1-37-mm-Flak-18-cannon-or-Bord-Kanone-3.7-underwing-gondolas-03.jpg)
(http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Ju-87G-Stuka/Junkers-Ju-87G/images/1-Ju-87G1-Stuka-being-rearmed-01.jpg)
(http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Ju-87G-Stuka/Junkers-Ju-87G/images/1-Junkers-Ju-87G2-Stuka-USAAF-war-prize-1945-01.jpg)
(http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Ju-87G-Stuka/Junkers-Ju-87G/images/1-Junkers-Ju-87G2-Stuka-USAAF-war-prize-1945-02.jpg)
(http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Ju-87G-Stuka/Junkers-Ju-87G/images/1-Junkers-Ju-87G-Stuka-10(Pz)SG1-01.jpg)
(http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Ju-87G-Stuka/Junkers-Ju-87G/images/1-Junkers-Ju-87G-Stuka-10(Pz)SG1-02.jpg)
(http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Ju-87G-Stuka/Junkers-Ju-87G/images/1-Ju-87G-Stuka-Stammkennzeichen-code-GC-01.jpg)
(http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Ju-87G-Stuka/Junkers-Ju-87G/images/0-Ju-87G-Stuka-Canon-Blueprint-0A.jpg)
-
Trust me, I tried bomber hunting in the Ju-87G in WB, it's nearly impossible. It's just that slow. It's speed was a benefit to it for aiming at tanks on the battlegrounds, but like the Storch also a weakness (leaving it vulnerable to ground fire).
-
Awesome pics beau!
-
I don't think there is a level bomber in the game that is slower than the Ju-87. Waste of time if you intend to use the Ju 87G-2 for that job.
ack-ack
B5N2 :lol.
-
love the new models they are amazing.
but its ashame that there was a ju87 with 20mm wing guns that will never be added to the game even as an optional gun package for the new model that could be disabled in scenarios. 20mm armed ju87 is a big deal in terms of a plane getting used or never seeing the light of day and sitting in the hangar.
its a bit like chosing the b25c over the b25j then wondering why no one flies it in the main arena.
-
B5N2 :lol.
Probably faster.
-
B5N2 :lol.
The Kate isn't a level bomber and its still faster than the Ju-87G-2, though not by much.
ack-ack
-
love the new models they are amazing.
but its ashame that there was a ju87 with 20mm wing guns that will never be added to the game even as an optional gun package for the new model that could be disabled in scenarios. 20mm armed ju87 is a big deal in terms of a plane getting used or never seeing the light of day and sitting in the hangar.
its a bit like chosing the b25c over the b25j then wondering why no one flies it in the main arena.
Never say never. Who says we wont get it? Remember, like it has already been pointed out, HTC released 4 different versions of the P40 in a very short time. It could still happen. ;)
-
The Kate isn't a level bomber and its still faster than the Ju-87G-2, though not by much.
ack-ack
It has a bombsight for level bombing, therefore its a level bomber, Like the TBM, but I get what you're saying.
It could be used as a bomber interceptor in AH just like the IL2 can. Except when has anyone seen an IL2 do that? Furthermore, the IL2 armor piercing rounds appear to do not nearly as much damage as an explosive round, and seeing as the G-2 also uses armor piercing, we're looking at an awesome round that essentially is not effective unless it hits a critical component (unlike a tater for example)
On that idea, I am reasonably convinced that that IS modeled in AH. For example Taters do "splash?" damage due to an explosive round, but armor piercing do not, hence how less effective they are against aircraft. You can see this by landing a 30mm near a target but not hitting it, and watching your target explod, VS putting an il2 round in the same spot and watching the target take no damage.
Edit: So no, a Stuka will make a terrible bomber interceptor even in AH.
-
fighters tend to get an average of 3-4 versions for heavily used long serving popular models.
bombers and attack aircraft have an average of one or two versions.
ju87G will get used. I'm a luftwaffe fan so I am looking forward to the Ju87G! the il2 with its extreme ammo clip will still get used more unless the bk37 is overpowered and can one shot tanks.
the only point I wish to make is the ju87d3 will be a rare bird in the Main Arena once the newness wears off. somthing like the ju87d5 with 20mm wing guns would bring it out of the hangar more often and get used with its big bomb and 20mm for all kinds of ground attack and straffing because even though its a sitting duck it can fight back against ultra stupid attackers and actually kill acks and buildings... it was after all a ground attacker.
this has happened before. with the b25's. the b25c is kin to the ju87d3 like the ju87d5 is kin to the b25J.
the differences may be simple but they are the difference between getting used and collecting dust.
-
the only point I wish to make is the ju87d3 will be a rare bird in the Main Arena once the newness wears off.
...
the differences may be simple but they are the difference between getting used and collecting dust.
No offense.... but some planes should gather dust. They can't (and shouldn't) all be late war wonder planes. I'm sure you yourself have commented about certain planes being outclassed in the past, and you must know that you shouldn't just stick huge guns on something just to make it "competitive" -- otherwise the entire game would be staffed with uber planes from 1946.
The very weakness and hangar-queen-ness of the plane makes it interesting to fly. If everybody were doing it, where would be the fun? I used to rather like it when I was the only C.205 in the arena, but in the rare surges where it gains popularity I find myself tiring of seeing everybody else flying what I fly, so I start flying something else until that surge dies down.
-
I don't think there is a level bomber in the game that is slower than the Ju-87. Waste of time if you intend to use the Ju 87G-2 for that job.
ack-ack
Shows you what I know. Don't think I've ever flown a JU-87
-
POTW does stuka raids for the big bomb and the afterwards pure dork factor.
Much of the time if we only bring stuka to a GV base we kill the hangers and nibble down all but one gun while the auto guns nibble us down. Then a fighter or two shows up and the feeding bell rings out. We have gotten good enough to hold our own for awhile with BB's. Even knock down a few fighters. But not having the 20mm snap shot power eventualy gets most of us killed. Even with a fighter escort.
Still, trying to RTB once the dinner bell rings is a magic trick. The thing is so slow you have to kill everything around you and on the trip home. That usualy means the survivors were who ever ran out of BB's first and left the area. In the LWMA whether we like it or not the game flow is majority dictated by late war rides in unskilled hands coupled with numbers. Like the ETO in late 44 onto the end of the war, anything that came up to challenge the 8th or got caught in the open was ganged by allied fighters.
It was painfully obvious in the few stuka raids I took part in, that for the lack of 2 - 20mm we could have killed most of the unskilled fighters attacking us and made the GV bases we attacked ready for the C47 or M3 without fighter escort. Skilled squads would find the D5 a challenge but, a very doable challenge with 20mm in the wings. The D3 is just a fun dorky thing to raid with once in awhile and pad the unskilled's kills landed message for picking a flock of something that can barely fight back. I've survived longer in big furballs when the POTW did fun D3A sweeps.
I still beleive in the LWMA the D5 with 20mm would generate a small dedicated following of players who enjoy turning the tables on the unwary who beleive a stuka is a free kill. How do you whine about being killed by a stuka in the face of the feelings over the Brewster in the LWMA?
-
It's quite fun and funny when ye sucker someone into a slow going fight with a Val. Last time I got into a dogfight in a Val, I suckered a 109F into a very slow turning fight. It didn't end well for his right wing. All the while I had 4 other cons trying to knock me out of the sky. :devil Damn it! Wished I had filmed that one. :bhead
Now, who's gonna take screenshots of our current Stuka and place it next to one of the screenshots HTC put up? :D
-
A Stuka is a free kill. That doesn't mean you can't make screw up and die to it though. If approached with any thought at all it is a free kill though.
-
I almost died laughing when my squad decided to take up a bunch of Val's to dogfight, Laughs on me because quite a few decided to dogfight them and lost...
/I took up a Hurri 1, however I did land my 3 kills:)
-
I wonder if folks haven't considered that the fact the stuka has a niche following is because it has no cannons. Putting cannons on it and flying it like a base defender or a better-gunned zeke (with a tail gun!) might be a total abuse of historic record, and instead of being fun would simply become the worst of the "lame" for players to indulge in, eh?
EDIT: Put it this way... if it can out turn anything, out stall anything, kill anything with 1 snapshot, and still have the range to go across the map and back.... Where's the bragging rights? That takes no skill.
(just food for thought)
-
A Stuka is a free kill. That doesn't mean you can't make screw up and die to it though. If approached with any thought at all it is a free kill though.
Not as much. Turns great, not as bad in climb rate (without ords), dives excellent. The only problem is, they can run away before the lil peashooters take effect. Still can survive long enough til the help arrives.
With 20mm cannons at least you could shoot their running arse or keep them from hoing.
-
OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOGMG!!!!!!!!!
OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D
YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've seen the light! the blessings of Saint David of Wales upon me! TANK BUSTIN SHTOOKA!
-
Not as much. Turns great, not as bad in climb rate (without ords), dives excellent. The only problem is, they can run away before the lil peashooters take effect. Still can survive long enough til the help arrives.
With 20mm cannons at least you could shoot their running arse or keep them from hoing.
I flew the stuka for a good while main problem I found in evasives was that the plane is simply so slow and turns so well that invariable it offers a side profile shot or has to go head on with an opponent which was no deterrant since it had rubbish guns :cry these 2 big cannons might dissuade the lazy head on option for dealing with a stuka :D
I wonder if folks haven't considered that the fact the stuka has a niche following is because it has no cannons. Putting cannons on it and flying it like a base defender or a better-gunned zeke (with a tail gun!) might be a total abuse of historic record, and instead of being fun would simply become the worst of the "lame" for players to indulge in, eh?
EDIT: Put it this way... if it can out turn anything, out stall anything, kill anything with 1 snapshot, and still have the range to go across the map and back.... Where's the bragging rights? That takes no skill.
(just food for thought)
When I flew the stuka, the trouble was that I usually ended up dogfighting in it, but only because an attacking enemy fighter usually ended making be jetison my bombs before I got to my drop height for a target :lol that wasn't my choice btw just the nature of the MA, scooting around on the deck blasting tanks should be a good larf in this :D
-
ju87 had 30 aircraft kills last tour and around 500 deaths.
now lets look at a previous example at what could have been...
the b26 is pretty close to the b25J in speed and defenses.
it gets used ten times more than the b25c
have you tried defending yourself in a b25c from a low 6 attack?
have you been tempted to throw your flight controls accross the room?
-
have you been tempted to throw your flight controls accross the room?
Tempted or have I? R.I.P. X-52 :salute
-
Cool, a new addition to the ground war, and the Ju87 is so sexy, exactly what the game needs :rolleyes: :huh :uhoh :frown:
-
A tank busting Stuka variant. This is going to be a blast!!!
Thanks HiTech! :salute
-
I am waiting for my 410! :furious
-
yesssssss
-
Its going to be a very close range tank buster. At most you'll get off 4 shots, "I'll be counting on two". Its projectile is much lighter then the NS-37s, at a higher velocity, and lower ROF. If it has an advantage its as a close in killer. I suspect my guns will be set to converge at 200 to 250.
-
I'm hoping for a Ki61 remodel. :pray
-
Snail,
if i see that diagram right, from 600m and with an impact angle of 50 degrees (very poor hit) it still could penetrate a 35mm thick armor.
This remark made me review a number of films again.
I know that the most important part of my success in the Hurri D (and, to a lesser degree, the IL-2) is the fact that I'm diving steeper on my prey than the majority. Many players just fly towards the tank and shoot at whatever angle they just happen to have. Now I checked the last few films and found that most of my kills had been made at angles between 45-50 degrees only. Even for me, who is very much used to that plane & tactic, establishing angles of 60° or better (which is mandatory vs better protected tanks like the T-34) is a pain in the butt, so to speak.
So even with the (supposed) superior penetration of the BK 3,7, the best bet for the 'average' player may still be to use the real world tactic and approach the tank on the deck from rear or sides.
But with a plane as slow, big and relatively little armored as the Ju-87 flying right into enemy MG and cannon barrels, it might lead to a surprisingly high number of casualties...
I just can't wait for it! :banana:
-
looks very nice wtg Greebo :aok
now for the mossie tse tse!! :D
-
have you tried defending yourself in a b25c from a low 6 attack?
have you been tempted to throw your flight controls accross the room?
Don't throw them wait until the guy has positioned himself low & behind you then lock the plane in a climb.
Jump in the turret when you get it spun you will be looking right at the pilots head.
-
Do some research and find out what the typical angles of attack were for the Il-2, Hurricane IID, and Stuka G. They were far more shallow than you think. The ranges in which the guns were fired were typically INSIDE 400 yards and usually closer to 200 yards. The window of opportunity to fire was very short, hence the desire of a few well placed shots vs spraying and praying. Pilots were not going to dive at a 60° and sharper angle at 250+ miles per hour, fire accurately at 200-400 yards, and pull up in a safe amount of time. Shallow dives were the name of the game. Obviously, what was true in WWII is not in AH.
Sounds about right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuYzfyG4SgU
His politics aside, Rudel is arguably the most awesome combat pilot ever...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=attjLGd8rjU
He even had a hand in designing the A-10 Warthog.
-
HTC, Thank you so much! always something new! thank you!!!
oh boy I want to fly it soooooo badly oh man i want it!
when is the update coming out?
-
I'm getting an itchy trigger finger... :x Raph, we HAVE to wing up together when the BK 37's are released. We shall rain death upon them in style! :devil
-
looks very nice wtg Greebo :aok
now for the mossie tse tse!! :D
?
Tempest interior is poo :old:
-
Not as much. Turns great, not as bad in climb rate (without ords), dives excellent. The only problem is, they can run away before the lil peashooters take effect. Still can survive long enough til the help arrives.
With 20mm cannons at least you could shoot their running arse or keep them from hoing.
Running into a Ju87D-3 when I was flying an A6M3 gave me the most dominating fight I have had in a long time. The Ju87 was completely outclassed by the A6M3. It was slow, clumsy and helpless. Adding 20mm cannons to it would not have helped.
-
Running into a Ju87D-3 when I was flying an A6M3 gave me the most dominating fight I have had in a long time. The Ju87 was completely outclassed by the A6M3. It was slow, clumsy and helpless. Adding 20mm cannons to it would not have helped.
:lol One of the most maneuverable fighter against a slow, underpowered dive bomber. Gee, wonder what might've happened.
-
Doesnt the regular Stuka have F3? Does that mean the tank buster will too? At least till the Waaaaaa's start?
-
I'm getting an itchy trigger finger... :x Raph, we HAVE to wing up together when the BK 37's are released. We shall rain death upon them in style! :devil
MUAHAHAHAHAHA
Waaaaaa's
:rofl
-
Doesnt the regular Stuka have F3? Does that mean the tank buster will too? At least till the Waaaaaa's start?
Neither version of them should have F3.
-
Neither version of them should have F3.
If the Il-2 loses F3, so should the Stuka.
-
Doesnt the regular Stuka have F3? Does that mean the tank buster will too? At least till the Waaaaaa's start?
Hmm... I will give HTC the benefit of the doubt on this one. Look at what they did with the Mossi FB Mk VI and the Mossi B Mk XVI. One has F3 ability and one does not. If HTC saw the light and took away F3 from the Il-2, and the Hurricane IID does not have it, then perhaps as time goes on HTC will re-evaluate each and every aircraft. I think applying F3 capability to a class of planes if the wrong way to go about it. I'd like to see it done on a case by case basis. The D3A, SBD, and Stuka do not need nor deserve F3 capability, imo.
As for the new Stuka and F3, wait and see. :aok
-
If the Il-2 loses F3, so should the Stuka.
If either of them get F3 so should all 2+ crewed planes. Like the 110, 410, Mossie. Does the bomber-Mossie have F3 view?
-
Does the bomber-Mossie have F3 view?
Yes, because it's classified as a bomber.
HTC had to make the IL-2 a fighter/attacker with the fighter scoring option hidden (making that plane look as if it were the only pure "attack" plane) to get rid of the F3 view. The view modes are tied to categories, not individual planes.
-
:lol One of the most maneuverable fighter against a slow, underpowered dive bomber. Gee, wonder what might've happened.
The tactics I'd have used in the Mossie would have been different, but the outcome would have been just as sure.
As to F3 on the Mossie XVI, nobody complains about it because what is it going to do with it? Set up awesome lead shots with the guns it doesn't have?
-
As to F3 on the Mossie XVI, nobody complains about it because what is it going to do with it? Set up awesome lead shots with the guns it doesn't have?
Spotting the enemy 262 slowly creeping up in my supposed "blind spot"? ;)
-
Spotting the enemy 262 slowly creeping up in my supposed "blind spot"? ;)
I'm not saying it isn't useful and shouldn be there. I am saying people don't whine about it because it can't use it offensively. The offensive use of F3 is what got the Il-2 in trouble.
-
There's a big difference between a bomber with 3 guns defending it and one with 10. That is why the B26 gets used so much.
Also, as a tangent, myself and some squaddies have quite successfully defended ourselves in B-25Cs against even Me262s. I got a 262 killer making lower 6 attacks at least 3 separate occasions, and one of my squaddies got 2 in a single sortie before as well.
Other than that, there's no comparison to B-25C and Ju-87.
-
as the number of 37mm rounds, what has been decided? is it 6 on each pod?
-
Looking at the diagrams, are you sure it is 12 rounds per gun? To me it looks like the tray can only fit 6 and then it has a balance weight(?) on the other side. The difference in their shape is most visible in the front and back drawings of the gun.
-
Looking at the diagrams, are you sure it is 12 rounds per gun? To me it looks like the tray can only fit 6 and then it has a balance weight(?) on the other side. The difference in their shape is most visible in the front and back drawings of the gun.
Two trays with 6 rounds each.
(http://airforce-photo.com/albums/userpics/10009/normal_ju87g-6_reloading_ammo_BK3_7.jpg)
-
ahh, they are loaded on top of each other. Hadn't noticed there was room for that.
-
great new about the stuka :rock do HTC update a plane/s in all its update releases.
-
:rofl Didn't take long for the F3 IL-2 issue to rear its head. Missed much?
Im really curious about the new D-model Stuka, might have some really attractive loadout options.
-
Without big instant 1-shot guns, F3 isn't an issue. However, now I can see it will be abused the same way the IL2 was. With the BK guns it stands to reason that variant will lose F3. Perhaps the "vanilla" (7mm) version will retain F3.
-
(Comment removed)
-
As for the new Stuka and F3, wait and see.
Yeah, wait and see if my tank keeps getting killed by it. :lol
BTW no ords means the dive window should be an asset to dive at steep angles.
-
There is a HUGE difference between the Ju-87 with the BK 37's and the Il-2 with it's NS-37's....ammo. 12 RPG vs 50 RPG. So I don't see why F3 will be removed from the 87. If it had 50 RPG like the Il-2, then it would probably get it removed. Personally, doesn't matter to me one way or the other. :aok
-
There is a HUGE difference between the Ju-87 with the BK 37's and the Il-2 with it's NS-37's....ammo. 12 RPG vs 50 RPG.
No, no difference. Same gun lethality, same ability to use ESP to dodge and weave attacks, same ability to kill goons, bombers, even fighters with a single shot. Doesn't matter if the ammo is lower, tards will just bail and spam-spawn on the runway as soon as they run out of ammo anyways.
No difference at all. In fact even with F3 disabled the Ju may be the preferred ride. It's not as armored, true, but it has significantly better visibility with that greenhouse canopy. I think that alone will make folks use it instead of the IL2.
-
It's slower speed and lower rate of climb may be a "turn off" for a lot of folks, as well as it's low ammo. The Hurri 2D can be used in this example. It has MUCH better visibility, rate of climb and is faster, but I suspect that it doesn't get used as often as the Il-2 is due to the low amount of ammo and that it's rather fragile. The 40mm's are quite good, even though they are inferior to the NS-37's. Personally, I still see more Il-2's than Hurri 2D's. Hell, I see more 25H's than Hurri 2D's, and this is with folks actually using just the gun and not taking ords. :aok Regardless, it really wouldn't bother me if the 87 G-2 doesn't come with F3. It just means I can't eye smex the plane while going places... :cry
-
There is a HUGE difference between the Ju-87 with the BK 37's and the Il-2 with it's NS-37's....ammo. 12 RPG vs 50 RPG. So I don't see why F3 will be removed from the 87.
I'm not sure why some players have a hard time differentiating the differences between the planes OUTSIDE a singular category or 2. You are basing the "need" of the Ju87 to have F3 view on the amount of ammo it carries???
-
The JU87 in ground attack config shouldn't get F3. Heck, for that matter, neither should the dive bomber config, nor the A20, nor the SBD, B5N, D3A, etc etc.
A big bomber with a full crew scanning the skies in all directions? Sure, F3 is representative of the additional sets of eyes.
A dive bomber or attack planes crewed by 2 guys, including the pilot? We already can see everything the rear gunner could see by pressing the "2" key.
-
(http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff44/jappa52/rudelFINALLY.jpg)
:D
-
The JU87 in ground attack config shouldn't get F3. Heck, for that matter, neither should the dive bomber config, nor the A20, nor the SBD, B5N, D3A, etc
This............... +1
-
No difference at all. In fact even with F3 disabled the Ju may be the preferred ride. It's not as armored, true, but it has significantly better visibility with that greenhouse canopy. I think that alone will make folks use it instead of the IL2.
Not to mention the fact that even with the gun pods, it will still probably be a bit more nimble than the IL-2. Or in other words, it will be better able to madly throw itself around the sky to avoid fire.
-
I wouldn't mind having no F3 in the stuka. I will bust tanks in it anyway.
-
I doubt players will rush the Ju-87 becasue it's "more nimble" than the Stuka. After all, they also didn't went in numbers for the Hurri D after the IL-2 lost it's F3, which unlike the Ju-87 is really wayyyyy more maneuverable than the Shturmovik. And it's cannon can destroy all tanks as well.
-
I doubt players will rush the Ju-87 becasue it's "more nimble" than the Stuka. After all, they also didn't went in numbers for the Hurri D after the IL-2 lost it's F3, which unlike the Ju-87 is really wayyyyy more maneuverable than the Shturmovik. And it's cannon can destroy all tanks as well.
Yes, but the Hurricane IID, while capable of killing all tanks, can't do it nearly so easily. They gain manuverablity and speed, but lose firepower and really that costs it some combat effectivness.
With the Stuka (depending on how much damage the 37mm's do to tanks), we'll be looking at an increase in manuverablity at the cost of only some armor, and maybe the potential 2-3 tank kills lost by the decreased ammunition.
Its important to note that people don't choose planes and tanks based on any one atribute, but based on their overall effectivness or out of some personal affection they feel for a specific plane or tank. I think that the Stuka will definatly be more effective than the Hurricane IID. And depending on how hard hitting those 37mm's are, it could even rival the Il-2, to the point that the better view and manuverablity could possibly be deciding factors.
Personally, I'm gonna take the G-2 over the IL-2 any day, but thats because I'm a luftwaffle.
-
I hope the ju87G will have attack mode only and thus no external views.
its not a bomber as it carries no bombs.
its primary role of tank hunter. it should have no external views.
I want to fly the ju87G and I think I would prefer to not have external view when tank hunting or when fighting enemy aircraft.
and btw I fly the il2 a ton more since the external view was removed.
-
if it has F3 mode. . .big trouble little AH
-
Yes, but the Hurricane IID, while capable of killing all tanks, can't do it nearly so easily. They gain manuverablity and speed, but lose firepower and really that costs it some combat effectivness.
With the Stuka (depending on how much damage the 37mm's do to tanks), we'll be looking at an increase in manuverablity at the cost of only some armor, and maybe the potential 2-3 tank kills lost by the decreased ammunition.
Its important to note that people don't choose planes and tanks based on any one atribute, but based on their overall effectivness or out of some personal affection they feel for a specific plane or tank. I think that the Stuka will definatly be more effective than the Hurricane IID. And depending on how hard hitting those 37mm's are, it could even rival the Il-2, to the point that the better view and manuverablity could possibly be deciding factors.
Personally, I'm gonna take the G-2 over the IL-2 any day, but thats because I'm a luftwaffle.
There are charts showing the effectiveness of the Soviet NS-37, Vickers S, and the BK 3.7cm. From what I am seeing there is no clear advantage to any of the guns, only gun platforms.
The Stuka may have a tighter turn radius at stall speeds, but that hardly counts as "more maneuverable". The Hurricane IID will run circles around the Stuka. Check the stats. The Stuka might win in terms of pilot protection and sustained turn rates, but that is about it.
If people would just take the time to learn the Hurricane IID, the Il-2 would be left in the hanger far more than it is. I cant remember the last time I took one up. They only time I think I consider it is when I know there are multiple soft gv's inbound to a town and I will take up rocket for the near miss hits. Rockets are great for blowing tires, treads, turrets, etc.
-
There are charts showing the effectiveness of the Soviet NS-37, Vickers S, and the BK 3.7cm. From what I am seeing there is no clear advantage to any of the guns, only gun platforms.
The Stuka may have a tighter turn radius at stall speeds, but that hardly counts as "more maneuverable". The Hurricane IID will run circles around the Stuka. Check the stats. The Stuka might win in terms of pilot protection and sustained turn rates, but that is about it.
If people would just take the time to learn the Hurricane IID, the Il-2 would be left in the hanger far more than it is. I cant remember the last time I took one up. They only time I think I consider it is when I know there are multiple soft gv's inbound to a town and I will take up rocket for the near miss hits. Rockets are great for blowing tires, treads, turrets, etc.
I'm not so sure about that. The 40mm definately FEELS less effective against tanks, especially when firing at side and rear armor, instead of top armor. Now it may be just perception, but perception also plays a big part in what people fly. The 40mm is also less accurate than the 37mm, and has a slower ROF, which combined with the fact that the IID is just a less stable firing platform mean more time spent taking out each tank, regardless of the effectivness of the rounds themselves.
As to the manuverablity, I was actually refering to the responsivness of the aircraft. The Ju-87D-3 just feels quicker and more responsive to the controls (particularly in roll rate), than the IL-2 does.
And you also say 'if people would just take the time to learn the IID', which implys that the IID is inherently different in the effective method for engaging targets. The only possible culprit for that would be less effective armament, else attacks could be made in the same fashion as they are with the IL-2 without any loss of effectivness (relative to the IL-2), regardless of if they are the MOST effective, or even efficient, method FOR THE IID.
So no, its not 'if people would just learn the IID', its a matter of the IID having less effective armament regardless of the effectiveness of the individual projectiles.
-
Hurri D certainly is not 'less accurate'
aim right and it will go just where you aim it. consider gravity, lead and the position of your guns (if you are a litle leaned the shots will go differently then if you have both wingtips at same altitude) It won't just go random, it IS accurate as the IL-2, but the IL-2 'feels' more accurate due to its ROF
The way you use those planes are also different. at least the way I use them differ to much and I still see many people augerin' on them because they think it's the same thing.
Personally if it is an emergency and I have to get rid of the gv quickly (like in town) I'll up a hurri D because it will take off and go to its target and then start making the passes. If I wish to go on a longer sortie, maybe to another base even, then the IL-2 is a good choice. both are fun as heck but I sure will fly the Stuka for one goood ammount of time, oh boy I will.
Now if only the hurri D had a cockpit update :)
-
+1
-
Well I am happy to see the new Stuka in the game. Not just for historical reasons but another tank buster can't hurt. However I would still like to see the HS-129 in here someday. It would be much less prone to damage from ground fire than the JU87-G or any other ground attack plane now in the game if modeled correctly. The two engines would give it better survivability than the IL-2. But the HS-129 flew like a brick due to it's weight to power problems.
-
As being said, the Vickers S on the Hurri D is certainly not less accurate than the ND-37. In fact, it's a very precise weapon - but the low ROF and ammo count demands precision from the shooter as well, and that's the big drawback. The Il-2 can hose down a tank, in the Hurricane every shot counts. The Il-2 is also more versatile vs ground vehicles for the same reason, it's more suited top kill fast but light armored vehicles like M-3's than the single-shot Hurricane.
When using a low level flat attack profile from sides or rear, the Ju will be much superior to the Hurricane, but that will also make you very vulnerable to pintle guns and main cannons... the Ju is a slow, fat target in that case...
-
Well I am happy to see the new Stuka in the game. Not just for historical reasons but another tank buster can't hurt. However I would still like to see the HS-129 in here someday. It would be much less prone to damage from ground fire than the JU87-G or any other ground attack plane now in the game if modeled correctly. The two engines would give it better survivability than the IL-2. But the HS-129 flew like a brick due to it's weight to power problems.
Could the Hs129 even fly on one engine? If not I don't see the Hs129 being any more survivable than the Il-2. Less rather due to its horrid power to weight ratio.
-
Less rather due to its horrid power to weight ratio.
Have you actually checked it?
-
Without looking at numbers, my gutt feeling is the HS129 with the big gun would fly a lot like a slightly smaller B25H....
an MY GAWD, look at that thing.... who wouldn't want to have that thing hanging out front? :O
(http://ww2photo.se/air/d/hens/07816.jpg)
-
Without looking at numbers, my gutt feeling is the HS129 with the big gun would fly a lot like a slightly smaller B25H....
an MY GAWD, look at that thing.... who wouldn't want to have that thing hanging out front? :O
(http://ww2photo.se/air/d/hens/07816.jpg)
its not about how big it is, its what you can do with it that counts :old:
-
I WANT THE STUKA NAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :frown:
-
Have you actually checked it?
Everything I have read says that inadequate power was a persistent problem with the Hs129. Given the engines it is using that isn't surprising. Both engines combined have about as much power as one of the Bf110G-2's engines.
-
its not about how big it is, its what you can do with it that counts :old:
When it's THAT BIG, it doesn't matter what you do with it, there's still gonna be a lot of screaming and whining involved! :rofl
-
Everything I have read says that inadequate power was a persistent problem with the Hs129. Given the engines it is using that isn't surprising. Both engines combined have about as much power as one of the Bf110G-2's engines.
Best to not go vertical in it then, when turnfighting fighting against that M4! :old:
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cU6OK1zSxKg :D :banana:
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cU6OK1zSxKg :D :banana:
:rock
gosh I just want to fly it now, I shouldn't have heard the news ): can't sleep at night until the update is out
-
Best to not go vertical in it then, when turnfighting fighting against that M4! :old:
Well, the thing I was questioning was if it would actually be more survivable than the Il-2 due to having two engines. The Il-2 actually has more power than the Hs129 does. Losing an engine on the Hs129 might still be fatal.
-
:rock
-
Well, the thing I was questioning was if it would actually be more survivable than the Il-2 due to having two engines. The Il-2 actually has more power than the Hs129 does. Losing an engine on the Hs129 might still be fatal.
I wonder what the HS-129 power to weight ratio is compared to the B25H....
-
F3 :devil
-
F3 :devil
Sorry, Ghi, but I would not be at all shocked if the Ju87G-2 enters the game already in the same category as the one the Il-2 now exists in. It is possible that a new Attack category will be introduced in the next version that will contain things like the A-20G, Hurricane Mk IId, Il-2 and Ju87G-2.
-
Everything I have read says that inadequate power was a persistent problem with the Hs129. Given the engines it is using that isn't surprising. Both engines combined have about as much power as one of the Bf110G-2's engines.
Or we could just ask HTC to put the new BK 3.7 on the 110G,shame it only has 1 gun but the up side would be the ammo count. IIRC it carried 66 rounds and was loaded by the rear gunner like the 20's on the 110C.
It wouldnt take as much work as say adding the Hs129,not that I'm against adding the 129.
:salute
-
Or we could just ask HTC to put the new BK 3.7 on the 110G,shame it only has 1 gun but the up side would be the ammo count. IIRC it carried 66 rounds and was loaded by the rear gunner like the 20's on the 110C.
It wouldnt take as much work as say adding the Hs129,not that I'm against adding the 129.
No, but the guns are only part of the deal on the Hs129. The other part is the armor, which, as I recall, no other WWII aircraft, other than the Il-2, matches.
-
:furious Shame on HTC...wetting our lips to keep our minds off the 410!! :devil
-
What no bomb with the pawn cannon waaaaaa! :ahand I love mah stuka, and win afew A2A victories with so don't fudge her up. :furious
La7s, Spit16s weaksauce lulululuz
-
Hurri D certainly is not 'less accurate'
aim right and it will go just where you aim it. consider gravity, lead and the position of your guns (if you are a litle leaned the shots will go differently then if you have both wingtips at same altitude) It won't just go random, it IS accurate as the IL-2, but the IL-2 'feels' more accurate due to its ROF
The way you use those planes are also different. at least the way I use them differ to much and I still see many people augerin' on them because they think it's the same thing.
OK, perhaps the weapons are just as accurate. But I maintain that the IID is just a less stable firing platform, especially for sustained fire. The ROF itself has nothing to do with the percieved accuracy.
The biggest issue is how the IID's verticle stabalizers just aren't upto the task of handling recoil from the 40mm's. Now maybe the IL-2's guns just have less recoil, maybe the verticle stab is bigger, maybe all that weight in armor has something to do with it. But the IL-2 is a much more stable platform for sustained fire.
I also maintain that, excluding travle time to the fighting, the IL-2 is more effective at quickly dispatching vehicles. And that matters, and matters a LOT in many circumstances.
You don't tend to need things dead, and dead fast, unless things are getting out of controll and you're getting swarmed. If things are perfectly fine, and you've got the situation handled, then you generally have time to up a Panther or Tiger II and go on a rampage, or wait for ordnance to pop.
Another reason the Stuka will be preferable to the IL-2 and IID in many instances is that the bomber hangers are often the last structures to be targeted by attackers, which means that the Stuka will be one of the most effective anti-GV aircraft available when things are getting down to the wire.
-
Another reason the Stuka will be preferable to the IL-2 and IID in many instances is that the bomber hangers are often the last structures to be targeted by attackers, which means that the Stuka will be one of the most effective anti-GV aircraft available when things are getting down to the wire.
That assumes that the Ju87G-2 is spawned by the Bomber Hangars. It is likely, given what happened to the Il-2, that the Ju87G-2 will also spawn from fighter hangars.
-
You don't tend to need things dead, and dead fast, unless things are getting out of controll and you're getting swarmed. If things are perfectly fine, and you've got the situation handled, then you generally have time to up a Panther or Tiger II and go on a rampage, or wait for ordnance to pop.
Not us tank bustin' dweebs, when ords are down its a good oportunity as it means Gv's will come and there are not gonna be 100 Jabos and A20s flying over the spawn
-
That assumes that the Ju87G-2 is spawned by the Bomber Hangars. It is likely, given what happened to the Il-2, that the Ju87G-2 will also spawn from fighter hangars.
I'm not so sure about that. A big reason the IL-2 was as effective as it was at base defense (one of the biggest reasons they moved it to the FH, if I understand), was because of its high ROF and high ammo load.
It could even be used as a persuado fighter with the 23mm's.
However the Stuka's won't be as effective in the base defense role. Both because of the lower ROF of the guns, lower ammo capacity, and because they lack the Il-2's heavy armor.
-
I'm not so sure about that. A big reason the IL-2 was as effective as it was at base defense (one of the biggest reasons they moved it to the FH, if I understand), was because of its high ROF and high ammo load.
It could even be used as a persuado fighter with the 23mm's.
However the Stuka's won't be as effective in the base defense role. Both because of the lower ROF of the guns, lower ammo capacity, and because they lack the Il-2's heavy armor.
The reason it was moved is simple,the F3 view is tied to the hanger type! If it launches from a bomber hanger it has F3 it it launches from a fighter hanger F3 is only available during taxi.
Karnak, I agree the Hs129 was heavily armoured,part of the reason for the poor performance and would make a cool addition but so would adding the BK to the 110G or and the Mk101 30mm to the 110C if it was like Xmas or something..... :devil
:salute
-
The reason the IL2 was so effective was since FHs are normally the girst things bombed, along with the VH, you always had the BH/IL2s left to defend the base with. Now you can take out the entire shabang just by bombing the FHs. You dont even have to hit the ords since the BHs are full of clumsy perkmakers.
And if your in an agile fighter, with far better performance in every category, you have to be just as big a schmuck to get killed by 23mm IL2s as 37mm IL2s. Maybe bigger.
-
Henschel HS-129 ground attack plane with French motors.
Engines. Two 700hp Gnome-Rhone 14M 04/05 Radials. Span 46ft 7in, Length 31ft 11in, Wt 9,259lb (plus fuel crew and armament) Speed 253 at 12,000 ft. It don't sound like it would have had any advantage over the JU-87G in speed or weight ratio with about the same horse power of the JU-87D-3s Jumo 211 engine with 1,400 HP. But protection from ground fire was very good in the 129s.
I think the Germans pawned the HS-129 off on the Rumanians at first but did start to use them in Africa and Russia later until production of the HS-129 stopped in 1944. I only looked at one small bit of information on the 129. I am sure there is much more information out there on the HS-129 but this thread on the new JU-87G has been hijacked enough as it is.
-
The Hs 129 couldn't fly well on one engine, but it would get home. Power to weight and top speed are about equal to the Il-2 in a loaded configuration. Clean the Il-2 has slightly better performance.
-
I think the Il-2 was moved into the FH's is because at one point the Russians pressed it into the fighter role if I recall correctly, which it was of course ill suited for. The single seat variant; and maybe the dual seat variant? I wouldn't think the Stuka would be pressed into the FH, but instead, remain in the BH. Unless the Stuka was used in a fighter role at any point during it's career. :headscratch:
-
I think the Il-2 was moved into the FH's is because at one point the Russians pressed it into the fighter role if I recall correctly, which it was of course ill suited for. The single seat variant; and maybe the dual seat variant? I wouldn't think the Stuka would be pressed into the FH, but instead, remain in the BH. Unless the Stuka was used in a fighter role at any point during it's career. :headscratch:
No, the Il-2 was moved to the fighter hanger to remove the F3 view from it because some players, Ghi most notably, were using it as a fighter with F3 view.
-
I wonder why the Germans decided to use those weak french engines. I mean slap on a couple of DB 601's and you've got a real killer there.
-
I wonder why the Germans decided to use those weak french engines.
Because they were available. ;)
-
So were DB's. Personally, I think the HS-129 had more potential than some other projects they put DB's on.
-
So were DB's. Personally, I think the HS-129 had more potential than some other projects they put DB's on.
No, the DBs were not available. Production is not unlimited and apparently the Germans disagreed with on that.
I also don't think they could have fit two DBs on it. It isn't that big.
-
So were DB's. Personally, I think the HS-129 had more potential than some other projects they put DB's on.
More planes than just the HS-129 had to do with lesser engines than proposed, because the limited production was reserved for fighters.
-
The Hs 129 and the Mosquito share the fact that their existence was owed due to not using much critically needed resources. Metal in the Mosquito's case, and engines for the Hs 129. The RLM demanded that the Hs 129 be powered by "unimportant" engines of low horsepower that were not being used in other designs, so the plane's production would not interfere with those deemed more essential to the war effort.
-
They had DB's for aircraft like the 210 which turned out to be a bit of a flop, and the Ar 240, and the Do 335. The list goes on.
I'm not saying that those aircraft were produced in large numbers, or individually took away significant numbers of engines, but combined, they definately could have given the Hs 129 some more hp.
-
They had DB's for aircraft like the 210 which turned out to be a bit of a flop, and the Ar 240, and the Do 335. The list goes on.
Unlike the 129, the 210 (-> 410) was a high priority plane, and so was the 335. With a limited supply of top engines, you have to set priorities. Fighters and more important bombers went first.
As Karnak said, the only reason the 129 was being produced in the fist place was the fact that they managed to find another engine for it, without the Gnôme et Rhône it would never had been in series production at all - just for a lack of engines.
-
getting higher preformance ground attack fighters that will actually see combat into service should trump developing heavy fighters that saw rather limited use, and building pre-production fighters that clearly won't be able to be put into service in time.
Granted we DO have the advantage of hind sight, but it still should have been clear that the 335 wasn't going to be put into service before Germany surrendured.
-
Is it Stuka season yet?
-
getting higher preformance ground attack fighters that will actually see combat into service should trump developing heavy fighters that saw rather limited use, and building pre-production fighters that clearly won't be able to be put into service in time.
Granted we DO have the advantage of hind sight, but it still should have been clear that the 335 wasn't going to be put into service before Germany surrendured.
The Soviets, oddly enough, seem to have been the only ones to have realized how important that role was. The US and UK just hodgepodged it pushing essentially unarmored Hurricanes, P-38s, P-47s, P-51s, Spitfires and Typhoons into the role and the Germans slogged on with the Ju87 while half assed doing the Hs129. The Ju87 wasn't built for that role anymore than the Allied fighters were. The Japanese Ki-102 was unlikely to be particularly good in that role even though it was designed for air-to-ground work.
Only the Il-2 stands out as a success.
-
As a purpose-built ground attack plane, yeah. But I feel the Allied aircraft were better in the ground attack role due to their better ord carrying capacity.
I mean speed was their defense, where as armor was the Il-2's
a lone Il-2's guns weren't that effective against more heavily armored vehicles, and .50's or 20mm's will chew up soft skinned vehicles and light armor just as nicely.
And the ablity to haul around larger (although less efficient at anti-armor work) bombs, and rockets gave them greater flexiblity.
-
For all the Il-2's fame and glory, the Ju 87 is in fact the aircraft that destroyed the most tanks, and sunk the most ships in all of history. It was fantastically successful as long as proper fighter cover was provided. On the other hand the Il-2's attacks were found to be so inaccurate that they had more of a psychological effect than destructive. Their bombing was particularly inaccurate.
While some attacks against large unprotected targets such as horse and truck convoys and railyards had devastating effects, attacks against dug-in point targets were usually ineffective. So much so that in late 1943 the Soviets decided to equip the Il-2 with more than a hundred PTAB bomblets turning it into a mini-carpet-bomber which increased its success somewhat. However, mostly the Il-2 was a death trap; Il-2 pilots who survived 10 missions were declared Heroes of the Soviet Union.
-
The entire Soviet air force was structured and produced as a tactical force use to support the troops at the front. The western air forces had a different doctrine. A mostly strategic one, tho they certainly used their airframes in a tactical role too. The theory was is if they bombed essential industrys the Germans couldnt stay in the war. Of course later the doctrine was changed to include just plain killing the Germans and that would be that. The bomber war drained a lot of airframes and talent from the eastern front in order to protect the Reich as the war progressed. Most of all after Kursk when the IL2 really came into its own. A big reason for it being the Red air force fighter squadrons made the air more friendly for the Stormbirds. Made easier by the allies turning Germanys cities into infernos and tieing up so many Luftwaffe resources.
Without that would the IL2s done as well? I dont think so. But the so called Stormbird "circle of death" where a dozen or more IL2s would circle a target always having one or two of the attackers hitting it must have been terrifying.
-
For all the Il-2's fame and glory, the Ju 87 is in fact the aircraft that destroyed the most tanks, and sunk the most ships in all of history.
Tanks? Who knows? I don't buy the German claims, nor the Russians' nor the Brits' either. Post-war analysis suggests that planes didn't kill as many tanks as they thought they did. Nothing new there, it was true with planes v. planes as well.
As far as ships go...what about the Dauntless?
- oldman
-
Or the Swordfish?
-
I should perhaps have specified that it's not only warships, but all ships, and not tonnage, but numbers. The Stuka had its way with allied shipping in the English Channel, North Atlantic (long range R version from Norway) and all sorts of coastal ships along the Mediterranean, Black Sea, Baltic Sea and Barents Sea (north of Finland). It is generally accepted (including by such knowledgeable people as Barrett Tillman) that the Stuka did indeed sink more vessels (merchant marine and warships, if counting by numbers of ships sunk) than any other aircraft. The Curtis SB2C is credited the greater tonnage, and the Douglas Dauntless with the most number of warships sunk.
The Swordfish sank about 200,000 tons of shipping. More then any other British aircraft. That would be an impressive figure if it happened over a few months, as with the Fw 200 and Do 217. But it is not very impressive when spread over 6 years of warfare. About the same as the Italian SM.79 from 1940 to '43.
-
HS129's power loading is 3,57kg/hp compared to Il-2's 3,48kg/hp. Not a big difference.
-
The Swordfish sank about 200,000 tons of shipping. More then any other British aircraft. That would be an impressive figure if it happened over a few months, as with the Fw 200 and Do 217. But it is not very impressive when spread over 6 years of warfare.
Impressive for a Biplane
-
To be fair to the Swordfish, for the last half of the war it was mainly used for anti-U boat patrols. The bulk of its shipping tonnage was scored in 1940-42.
-
As a purpose-built ground attack plane, yeah. But I feel the Allied aircraft were better in the ground attack role due to their better ord carrying capacity.
I mean speed was their defense, where as armor was the Il-2's
a lone Il-2's guns weren't that effective against more heavily armored vehicles, and .50's or 20mm's will chew up soft skinned vehicles and light armor just as nicely.
And the ablity to haul around larger (although less efficient at anti-armor work) bombs, and rockets gave them greater flexiblity.
I'd be wary of comparing apples to oranges. Also, your analysis of "speed vs armor" inadvertently classifies weaknesses and attributes in to a positive/negative. If you would have asked the Soviets if they would have rather had the Il-2 for the role that it performed, or instead modified the Pe-2 for the direct support role (as a sub for the US P38, P47, etc), they would have stayed with the Il-2 without a doubt.
The Il-2 was a "direct support" aircraft, it could hang around and directly attack a specific enemy target vs coming in screaming with ordnance for an "area" effect like the US and RAF dive bombers usually did.
-
Well, to be fair the Ju 87 owes its outstanding success to the same fact as many other German aircraft; it served from the very beginning of the war to the very end, on all fronts and against numerically superior, (but often technologically or tactically inferior,) enemy forces. Despite the numbers it was clearly inferior in the anti-shipping role to purpose built naval dive bombers like the Dauntless and Helldiver. It particularly suffered in the range department as it was designed as a tactical Blitz weapon. Even the Ju 87R with its two 300L droptanks couldn't match the Dauntless in range, and they both typically carried much the same useful load in the anti-shipping role. The Stuka might have been more accurate in a dive being a true 90 degree dive bomber, but that's the only good thing I can say about the Stuka in this regard.
In the anti-tank role the Stuka excelled with its accurate and heavy bomb load. The D-5 version with 20 mm cannon and bombs (1,488 produced) was the main tank-buster in '42-'43. It was very successful and prompted the development of the "Cannonbird" Ju 87G.
-
Actually in the first years it served against numerically inferior enemy air forces as well. During the Polish and French campaigns the Luftwaffe always held superior numbers. Even during the BOB they did, tho they did go up against an enemy as good or better then they and without a long range fighter to protect the stukas. Had they stuck to their war against the RAF and coastal shipping who knows what would have happened.
On the eastern front after the first few days there really wasnt much Soviet air force left period. Even into '43 I'd bet the Luftwaffe held numerical advantage on the eastern front. By then however the Soviet and western aerospace Industries overwhelmed them in production. The Bomber war drained them from the tactical front as well. Still they didnt die quickly. That German industry was STILL able to produce so many Luftwaffe airframes/assets, and the Huns were able to fight so well for so long, is really a remarkable achievement.
-
True, but I was specifically thinking of the Ju 87's enemies/targets. The French Army and British expeditionary force in France had more tanks than the Wehrmacht during the Battle of France, and Churchill sacrificed the Channel convoys to preserve the RAF for the real battle. Again in 1941-'42 the Soviets had an astounding number of tanks (five times that of the invading German army), but most were outdated and lightly armored and easily destroyed by the Stuka.
-
I recall that the D3A had a hit rate on ships of more than twice what the Ju87 had.
-
Perhaps due to the excellence of Japanese pilot training early in the war. I don't think the Stukas got much anti-shipping training. That said, the Val was a very good dive bomber and has the record for most allied warships sunk.
-
Or maybe it had something to do with the fact that it served in the PTO where there was a vast expanse of water, plentiful shipping, and many warships to bomb :rolleyes:.
-
How would that affect hit rate? (Bombs dropped/bombs hit.)
-
Because their training would have centered around anti-ship work, and they would have had more chances to practice their skills.
Just saying, its not that Japanese training was better, just that focuses were on two different things.
-
Dunno. Ostensibly if you've been trained to hit tanks, as the Germans were, you ought to be able to hit ships as well.
As I understand it the Japanese training was better as far as producing the best pilots, but it was substantially inferior in producing lots of pilots. They had a huge washout rate because of the standards they had.
-
Like I said, different focus. Germany focused on getting good numbers of competent pilots trained, Japan focused on getting a smaller number of highly skilled experts trained.
I mean when number of aircraft is severely limted (such as on a carrier), it would make sense to only accept the best. At least initially.
-
Japanese training was extreme before, and during the early years of the war. It was brutal beyond belief and only a very small % of cadets graduated. At the start of the Pacific War most Japanese active pilots had two years of training plus up to five years of active combat service in China with thousands of flight hours logged.
-
Just saying, its not that Japanese training was better...
Like I said, different focus. Germany focused on getting good numbers of competent pilots trained, Japan focused on getting a smaller number of highly skilled experts trained.
You are contradicting yourself.
-
Dunno. Ostensibly if you've been trained to hit tanks, as the Germans were, you ought to be able to hit ships as well.
It's very different apparently (I wouldn't know from personal experience). Diving against a ship on the sea makes judging distance, angle and relative motion difficult compared to land targets where you usually have plenty of fixed visual references. Tanks were also often unaware of being attacked (noisy environment and poor optics for spotting planes) and caught stationary, or moving slower than a ship at flank speed trying to evade.
-
I mean when number of aircraft is severely limted (such as on a carrier), it would make sense to only accept the best. At least initially.
The Japanese also had a well trained air force, you seem to have forgotten that.
ack-ack
-
You are contradicting yourself.
Better training doesn't always mean longer training, or more rigourous training. Training can only teach you so much, you have to pick up some things in the field. But the field can teach you what you need to know that training just glances over.
In this case, I was refering to the training system. Personally, I think the German system was better, at least for their situation.
-
I mean when number of aircraft is severely limted (such as on a carrier), it would make sense to only accept the best. At least initially.
The Japanese also had a well trained air force, you seem to have forgotten that.
A bit of a non sequitur there sir.
-
However, you do agree that better trained Japanese "expert pilots", as you called them, would increase the Val's hit rate?
-
Japanese training was extreme before, and during the early years of the war. It was brutal beyond belief and only a very small % of cadets graduated. At the start of the Pacific War most Japanese active pilots had two years of training plus up to five years of active combat service in China with thousands of flight hours logged.
They expected a quickie too. Thus they had no way to sustain a credible training program during the war, which they certainly needed after Midway. Nor did they have the fuel or industry to win a war of attrition. Most of all after the outstanding talent they started the war with eventually got kilt.
The war in the far east was a water war. A "Naval War". Whatever you want to call it. The majority of shipping interdiction in the Atlantic was done by submarine due to the lack of basing and aircraft capable of the extreme distances. I'd say the Japs got very good at it cause they had a good platform, excellent initial training and pilots, and a whole lot of targets in the first years of war with CVs and land bases dispersed to cover the hunting grounds. Dont forget Germany was considered the greater threat and the majority of allied assets went to the ETO in the first few years.
Sometimes it seems like the entire German military had Hitlers phobia about water. Even the brave submariners died in vain cause Hitler wouldnt give priority to new boat designs. The Stuka was a good anti-ship design but was the Luftwaffe really trained and motivated to fight a shipping war? No they werent! Even their convoy search airframes werent used for what they were supposed to do. Often they were assigned other duties. And Hitler never really saw it, or didnt want to see it, how close they were to starving England into making hard decisions.
In short anti-shipping operations just wasnt the priority of the Luftwaffe that it was with the IJN or IJAAF. Even with identical platforms could ANY air force really compare with the Japs until after '42 in anti-shipping OPs?
-
Extremely doubtful.
-
However, you do agree that better trained Japanese "expert pilots", as you called them, would increase the Val's hit rate?
I agree that it could, depending on if they practiced bombing moving, ship-sized targets out on the open ocean. But I also think that simple opportunity to practice their skills also could have affected their hit rate.
-
They practiced with towed targets. It didnt matter if it was shipsize cause if you could put the bomb in a life raft sized targets its a pretty good assumption you could hit a ship.
-
But we're discussing the new stuka here right :aok
-
Shtooka! Shtooka! Shtooka!
-
(http://i1164.photobucket.com/albums/q569/bryguyw/A_ju87g1de.jpg)
-
Dang I keep forgetting to take the new stuka up for a ride.