Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Rob52240 on May 28, 2012, 08:59:32 AM

Title: Fw 200
Post by: Rob52240 on May 28, 2012, 08:59:32 AM
I wish they'd add the Fw 200

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1978-043-02%2C_Focke-Wulf_Fw_200_C_Condor.jpg/300px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1978-043-02%2C_Focke-Wulf_Fw_200_C_Condor.jpg)

I think the rest of this thread should consist of posts explaining why I'm FOS and about what other things we should get  first in terms of new toys, new models, new rules, a manhatten project, submarines, strat systems, maps, and even things totally unrelated to Aces High.

Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: The Fugitive on May 28, 2012, 09:01:56 AM
Sound a little bitter. No one is allowed to have a different opinion than yours?
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Rob52240 on May 28, 2012, 09:24:33 AM
Nah, and I'm not even saying that I'm sure the Fw 200 should be the next thing to add to our arsenal.

It just seems like whenever someone posts anything a bunch of nay sayers with no manners come out of the woodwork.  Lately to me the forum seems like a place to have arguments instead of discussion and I'm a bit tired of it to be honest.

Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Karnak on May 28, 2012, 09:50:27 AM
Tell us what you like about the Fw200 and why you think it should be added.  Don't wait for others to define the conversation in a negative fashion.
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Rob52240 on May 28, 2012, 09:52:24 AM
4 Engine German bomber with decent defensive armament.
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Raphael on May 28, 2012, 09:55:27 AM
seems legit
+1 to a big german bomber update that includes this and HE111  :noid
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Karnak on May 28, 2012, 10:00:23 AM
4 Engine German bomber with decent defensive armament.
What about the Fw200 meets these requirements?  True, it has four engines, but four engines don't magically make it better.  Look into it a bit more and see what its true capabilities were.
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Debrody on May 28, 2012, 10:04:38 AM
This aircraft was used against the british convoys. It was successful with its very long range and later with the Fritz-X guided missile, but once the allied sent CVs, the FW-200s were done. Also their operation over the eastern front was a failure. It was a civil aircraft, its fuselage was weak (especially the rear section) also the defensive arnament couldnt be placed well. Was very slow and only carryed 2000kg of ordenance.

Even tho i like this elegant aircraft, i think the german bomber that should be added is the He-111 (historical stuff) or/and the Ju-188 (competitive in the LWMA) as they are much more inportant models than this one.
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Rob52240 on May 28, 2012, 10:39:57 AM
I don't think a plane should necessarily need to have great attributes as a requisite for adding it to the game. 

After all we do have ENY, OBJ and a brand new stuka on the way.
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Ruah on May 28, 2012, 10:45:48 AM
the condor, feared by the British and one of the planes that could have won the war (amongst a list of other things).

Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Butcher on May 28, 2012, 10:49:12 AM
Up to 4300lbs of bombs, single 20mm and couple of 13mms, Certainly better then the Ju-88 in terms of defensive firepower.
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Karnak on May 28, 2012, 10:54:20 AM
No, by no means are great stats a requirement.

However, when you call it a "4 Engine German bomber with decent defensive armament." that implies certain expectations on your part.  It, to American ears at least, makes one think of something like the B-17G.  Generally that has been how requests for the Fw200 have been presented.  If you want the Fw200 for what it was, recognizing that it is inferior to the Ju88A-4, that is well and good.
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: TwinBoom on May 28, 2012, 11:01:08 AM
What about the Fw200 meets these requirements?  True, it has four engines, but four engines don't magically make it better.  Look into it a bit more and see what its true capabilities were.

          ^
           l
           v
(http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii253/maddogjoe_photos/bbs.jpg)

Karnak fyi these arent wartime conditions +1 for the condor
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Karnak on May 28, 2012, 11:10:37 AM
          ^
           l
           v
(http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii253/maddogjoe_photos/bbs.jpg)

Karnak fyi these arent wartime conditions +1 for the condor
I am not saying it shouldn't be added.  I am asking why he wants it in an effort to find out if he knows what he is asking for.  Heck, I have been strongly advocating for the Ki-43 which would be just about as useful/useless in the LWA.

My concern with this is that most people who ask for the Fw200 think they are asking for a German B-17 and aren't aware that the Fw200 was actually a slow, fragile civilian airliner converted into a long range maritime patrol aircraft.

If what he wants is that long range maritime patrol aircraft, more power to him.
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: TwinBoom on May 28, 2012, 11:18:34 AM
Rob

check out these
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuF4wGkHA5g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuF4wGkHA5g)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwOWv_bMBrM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwOWv_bMBrM)
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: TwinBoom on May 28, 2012, 11:20:44 AM
I am not saying it shouldn't be added.  I am asking why he wants it in an effort to find out if he knows what he is asking for.  Heck, I have been strongly advocating for the Ki-43 which would be just about as useful/useless in the LWA.

My concern with this is that most people who ask for the Fw200 think they are asking for a German B-17 and aren't aware that the Fw200 was actually a slow, fragile civilian airliner converted into a long range maritime patrol aircraft.

If what he wants is that long range maritime patrol aircraft, more power to him.

Yes in real life they were but can be used for scenarios and town/strat bombing
Just like in real life spit 1 and brews didnt fight k4`sand 51d
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Tank-Ace on May 28, 2012, 11:47:05 AM
However, when you call it a "4 Engine German bomber with decent defensive armament." that implies certain expectations on your part.  It, to American ears at least, makes one think of something like the B-17G.

Not to me. I think more of B-26 when I hear 'decent defensive armament'. Just a bit less than the B-17's, but that 'bit less' creates some exploitable gaps where only one or two guns can be brought to bear, and none of them being a twin mount.


Anyway, +1 to the Fw 200, but only after we get a Ju-188 or He-177 and the He-111.
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Karnak on May 28, 2012, 12:00:53 PM
Yes in real life they were but can be used for scenarios and town/strat bombing
Just like in real life spit 1 and brews didnt fight k4`sand 51d
Of course.  That wasn't what I was saying.  Most requests for the Fw200 have been from people who want a German heavy bomber and their expectation is a four engined, 300mphish, decently gunned, tough bomber with a good bomb load.  What they'd get in the Fw200 would be an aircraft that performs like a long ranged maritime patrol aircraft, a four engined, 220mphish, lightly gunned, fragile bomber with a relatively light bomb load.

It could, of course, be used in any way they want once added.  The Fw200 would be a fine addition, I just don't think it would be the addition that most requesters think it would be.
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Butcher on May 28, 2012, 12:32:14 PM
I won't vote on the Fw-200 anytime soon, I wouldn't mind it being added but think about this - after 4-5 flights, people will switch back to B-17 or B-24.
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: oakranger on May 28, 2012, 02:22:01 PM
+1. It would be nice to have a long range axis bomber with a heavy paid load.
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Tank-Ace on May 28, 2012, 02:23:44 PM
+1. It would be nice to have a long range axis bomber with a heavy paid load.

You mean it would be nice to have a long-ranged axis bomber. It carries a little bit more ordnance than a B-26.
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Karnak on May 28, 2012, 02:24:56 PM
+1. It would be nice to have a long range axis bomber with a heavy paid load.
Case in point.
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Ack-Ack on May 28, 2012, 02:41:27 PM
the condor, feared by the British and one of the planes that could have won the war (amongst a list of other things).



How could the Condor "have won the war" when crews were ordered not to engage in combat actions after 1941?

ack-ack
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Rob52240 on May 28, 2012, 03:04:37 PM
at the very least it would be fun to shoot at.
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: HighTone on May 28, 2012, 03:10:00 PM
I agree that we need another German bomber, esp for the special events. I'm just not sure I want the next one to be a Fw200.

The Germans, Russians and Italian need some bomber additions.


I would like to see us get the He-111, Pe-2/Tu-2, SM79 out of the way first.



-1 on the condor...but just for now.
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Rob52240 on May 28, 2012, 03:19:26 PM
No, by no means are great stats a requirement.

However, when you call it a "4 Engine German bomber with decent defensive armament." that implies certain expectations on your part.  It, to American ears at least, makes one think of something like the B-17G.  Generally that has been how requests for the Fw200 have been presented.  If you want the Fw200 for what it was, recognizing that it is inferior to the Ju88A-4, that is well and good.

I disagree, as an american I automatically assumed it would be weakly armed compared to pretty much any american bomber before I looked the specs up.

What about throwing in that russian bomber that paratroops hung from the wings of just for fun while we're at it?
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Tank-Ace on May 28, 2012, 03:26:02 PM
Why do you assume that Rob? The Ju-88 was reasonably well armed for when it was designed, arguably better armed than early B-17's.

The Ju-188 was decently armed as well, as was the He-177.
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Karnak on May 28, 2012, 03:36:24 PM
Why do you assume that Rob? The Ju-88 was reasonably well armed for when it was designed, arguably better armed than early B-17's.

The Ju-188 was decently armed as well, as was the He-177.
The heaviest armament carried by any large aircraft in WWII was by the Ju290A-7 which, while only ten were built, was defended by ten 20mm MG151/20 cannons.
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Tank-Ace on May 28, 2012, 03:53:46 PM
Oh I know, but since, as you said, only 10 were built, I don't see how its relevent to the stereotype of German bomber's being poorly armed.
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Debrody on May 28, 2012, 04:04:30 PM
Sirs, listen plz,

Im NOT against this plane and once again, its one of my favourite aircrafts.
Still, think about what AH's ju-88 a-4 couldnt do better than the FW-200? Bombload, speed, climb all goes to the 88 by far, i would call par on the defensive arnament couse the 200's guns are very poorly placed and only can fire to a very limited angle and if im right, the 20mm cannon is in the forward firing position of the gondola. All what the 200 has is the range. The Fw-200 was famous from its weak rear fuselage too...

Where could the Fw-200 be used in the scenarios? On the Atlantic convoy missions. Does AH have those? Nope.
In the other hand, the Ju-188 is an 1943-44 bomber, fast, had a well-placed, decent defensive firepower, had a bigger bombload, and, was used faaaar more, also more successfully than the Fw-200.
If you really want an early Luft bomber, that should be either the He-111 or the Do-17, based on the role they played.
Seeing how quickly HTC is pushing out the new planes (410...), i would request to concentrate the resources on the most inportant plane types (if we wanna see anything but hangar queens before we grow old):
russian bomber (tu-2, pe-2), japaneese land-based fighter (ki43, ki44), italian aircraft (sm-79, Cr-42, c200, re-2000/2001/2002), a german Mid or real early war bomber (ju-188 or he-111/do-17) and a french aircraft (D-520?)
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Rob52240 on May 28, 2012, 04:07:50 PM
Why do you assume that Rob? The Ju-88 was reasonably well armed for when it was designed, arguably better armed than early B-17's.

The Ju-188 was decently armed as well, as was the He-177.

Just small caliber guns
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Tank-Ace on May 28, 2012, 04:53:40 PM
B-17B, and C had a .30 caliber gun in the nose, a .50 in the dorsal turret and ventral turret, and a .30 cal each in the waist gunner possitions IIRC.

Thats not a whole lot of firepower, and not much of an improvment over the 4 7.92mm's on the Ju-88.

Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Karnak on May 28, 2012, 04:55:19 PM
Ventral gondola.   B-17B and C didn't have a ventral turret.
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Butcher on May 28, 2012, 05:58:54 PM
Ventral gondola.   B-17B and C didn't have a ventral turret.

Just how many B and C's were in combat? comparing apples to oranges, Ju-88 was in combat far longer and ill equip to defend itself even late war.

Prime example would a be a B-17E to B-17F - it was clear the E model was unable to defend itself in combat, and modifications made to upgrade the defense, F model is a primary example of combat upgrades.
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Tank-Ace on May 28, 2012, 06:15:58 PM
It also needs to be noted that the Ju-88 was serving primarily on the Eastern Front, where the red airforce had been smashed, and there was only a real need to upgun them starting around 1943, by which time the Ju-188 and He-177 were being brought into service.
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Butcher on May 28, 2012, 06:31:47 PM
It also needs to be noted that the Ju-88 was serving primarily on the Eastern Front, where the red airforce had been smashed, and there was only a real need to upgun them starting around 1943, by which time the Ju-188 and He-177 were being brought into service.

That's not the main reason, in the 1930s Bombers were as fast as fighters for the time, there was an insight to "outrun the fighters" to bomb the targets - however fighters caught up pretty quick, there wasn't a reason any country needed to up the defenses of the bombers (look pre-1942).

Only the American's once gained combat experience, were lucky enough to be able to re adapt the B-17 to the "flying fortress" it was, if you look at the British bombers - switched to night time bombing, while Japanese had really no opponents to deal with - left with a major problem once american planes
were able to get its guns to bare.

Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Volron on May 28, 2012, 07:06:45 PM
I think it would be awesome to have the Fw 200 added.  But I would be surprised to see it before the Do-17, truth be told.  The plane that might start an argument is the TB-3.  It does meet the requirements to be included in AH, even if the Russians stopped making them before the war started.  They were in squadron strength and were even used in daylight raids, though the losses where severe to say the least.  I would like to see the TB-3 EVENTUALLY added.  I will admit though, that it's scenario and FSO use would be limited, but probably no more than the Fw 200 (the Fw 200 will have more use if we ever get merchant convoys and subs, maybe).  And no, I'm not thinking about that mothership TB-3 thing they tried. :)


And yes, I threw out a TB-3 card. :D


As for the Fw 200, yes, an eventual add, definitely.  But I wonder how they will model it... :headscratch:  It was known to break it's back when landing after all...  Couple of pings to the tail when engaged and it snaps off?  That...would suck. :bhead
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: TwinBoom on May 28, 2012, 07:07:53 PM
Id like to see the Fighter version of the JU88 when it gets updated

(http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/4829/junkersju88image2.jpg)
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Tank-Ace on May 28, 2012, 08:19:22 PM
Was speed improved at all with the fighter version? Manuverablity?
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Karnak on May 28, 2012, 08:20:43 PM
Was speed improved at all with the fighter version? Manuverablity?
Ju88C had about the same performance as the Ju88A-4.

Ju88G could do over 400mph, IIRC.

Edit:

The Ju88 was one of the two most versatile airframes of WWII and between it and the Mosquito it can be argued endlessly which was more versatile.
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: titanic3 on May 28, 2012, 10:17:41 PM
Ju-88G would be nice as well as a remodeling of the current one. IMO, if you want a non-hangar queen, MA, German bomber, it's either the Ju-188, or He-177. Ju-188 wins my vote though.
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Lusche on May 28, 2012, 10:23:09 PM
no love for my Do-217  :cry
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: titanic3 on May 28, 2012, 10:30:11 PM
no love for my Do-217  :cry

I thought about it, but figured that anything the 217 can do, so can the He-111. While I would love to see all 3 major German bombers together, in terms of time spent on development, the He-111 is the most needed thing right now along with a Ju-88 remodel and BoB variant that doesn't leave Spitfires I in the dust.
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Lusche on May 28, 2012, 10:33:09 PM
I thought about it, but figured that anything the 217 can do, so can the He-111.

You may be thinking of the Do-17... the 217 is way superior to the He 111
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Karnak on May 28, 2012, 11:06:55 PM
no love for my Do-217  :cry
I'd much rather see the Ju188A-1, but the Do217 would be my second choice for a LWA viable German bomber.
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Tank-Ace on May 28, 2012, 11:22:46 PM
It seems like the Do-217 could be rather underwhelming, depending on circumstance. Up high, it would be fast and hard to intercept, but from what I've read, getting up that high could take a good long while while loaded with bombs. And defensive armament would be kind of 'meh'.
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Karnak on May 28, 2012, 11:30:49 PM
What do you think of the Ju188A-1?
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Lusche on May 28, 2012, 11:34:00 PM
It seems like the Do-217 could be rather underwhelming, depending on circumstance. Up high, it would be fast and hard to intercept, but from what I've read, getting up that high could take a good long while while loaded with bombs. And defensive armament would be kind of 'meh'.

But far less 'meh' than the He 111 under any circumstances. Faster climbing, higher practical bomb load, much faster (~70mph) at any alt. Very simplified spoken: Think of a Ki-67 with some lesser armament, but carrying four times more bombs ;)
In terms of survivability, it's several magnitudes higher rated than the He 111.
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Tank-Ace on May 29, 2012, 12:03:11 AM
And I'm saying I'd rather have a Ju-188 or an He-177 to go along with the He-111.


And preferably we'd get two He-111 models so it wouldn't be complete **** in the MA. He-111 H3, and He-111 H11
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: MAINER on May 29, 2012, 02:04:18 PM
+1 for FW200
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Babalonian on May 29, 2012, 05:48:41 PM
4 Engine German bomber with decent defensive armament.

This game does lack German bombers, and only has four 4-engined aircraft featured from throughout the entire war, so that's a good arguement.

What else could the Fw200 bring to the table though?
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Babalonian on May 29, 2012, 05:59:42 PM
I think it would be awesome to have the Fw 200 added.  But I would be surprised to see it before the Do-17, truth be told.  The plane that might start an argument is the TB-3.  It does meet the requirements to be included in AH, even if the Russians stopped making them before the war started.  They were in squadron strength and were even used in daylight raids, though the losses where severe to say the least.  I would like to see the TB-3 EVENTUALLY added.  I will admit though, that it's scenario and FSO use would be limited, but probably no more than the Fw 200 (the Fw 200 will have more use if we ever get merchant convoys and subs, maybe).  And no, I'm not thinking about that mothership TB-3 thing they tried. :)


And yes, I threw out a TB-3 card. :D


As for the Fw 200, yes, an eventual add, definitely.  But I wonder how they will model it... :headscratch:  It was known to break it's back when landing after all...  Couple of pings to the tail when engaged and it snaps off?  That...would suck. :bhead

I love how popular my wish is becoming - to die of laughter while shooting down a TB-3 in AH. :aok
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Volron on May 29, 2012, 06:32:58 PM
I love how popular my wish is becoming - to die of laughter while shooting down a TB-3 in AH. :aok

See, I have a plan for when I encounter a formation of TB-3's.

First part of the plan will be to land whatever I'm flying as soon as possible.  The second part will be to decide if I want to use the 109E, 110C or anything else that will have come well before it.  Then I would put 100% fuel in it with DT's, if applicable, and take off.  The third part will be, providing no one has ruined my plans, to intercept using the weakest guns on my chosen interceptor. :devil  And yes, you will have the time to do this because they weren't exactly the fastest thing in the air. :lol


My plan for when I'm IN the TB-3...  Put up a pretty fireworks display. :D


I dream of flying the Fw 200 in Aces High, scouting out for CV's. :x  Hopefully we'll have merchant convoy's in place by then. :joystick: :x



Hmm...which should get added first?  The TBD or the Fw 200?  Just talking about these two planes.  The Fw 200 has the numbers advantage over the TBD, but the TBD will probably have more use in scenarios and FSO's than the Fw 200.  In the MA's...both will piss me off because I'm not in a proper interceptor when I see them... :bhead  By "proper" I mean, one of it's matching era.  I recall seeing some screenies someone posted of them flying a Hurri I and intercepting G4M1's...in the MA!!!  That lucky bastajege! :bhead  You suck, whoever you are! :furious
Title: Re: Fw 200
Post by: Babalonian on May 30, 2012, 03:32:56 PM
See, I have a plan for when I encounter a formation of TB-3's.

First part of the plan will be to land whatever I'm flying as soon as possible.  The second part will be to decide if I want to use the 109E, 110C or anything else that will have come well before it.  Then I would put 100% fuel in it with DT's, if applicable, and take off.  The third part will be, providing no one has ruined my plans, to intercept using the weakest guns on my chosen interceptor. :devil  And yes, you will have the time to do this because they weren't exactly the fastest thing in the air. :lol


My plan for when I'm IN the TB-3...  Put up a pretty fireworks display. :D


I dream of flying the Fw 200 in Aces High, scouting out for CV's. :x  Hopefully we'll have merchant convoy's in place by then. :joystick: :x



Hmm...which should get added first?  The TBD or the Fw 200?  Just talking about these two planes.  The Fw 200 has the numbers advantage over the TBD, but the TBD will probably have more use in scenarios and FSO's than the Fw 200.  In the MA's...both will piss me off because I'm not in a proper interceptor when I see them... :bhead  By "proper" I mean, one of it's matching era.  I recall seeing some screenies someone posted of them flying a Hurri I and intercepting G4M1's...in the MA!!!  That lucky bastajege! :bhead  You suck, whoever you are! :furious

Well, I was thinking of using the 109E against it too, but only because of it's narrow landing gear.  If you can clear the vert stab and the speedbumps that are the open-air cockpit and gunner, one could maybe land aboard and hijack the TB-3.


But yeah, there's a place in AH for the Fw200 and TB-3, the kindling box.