Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: alpini13 on May 29, 2012, 06:50:28 PM
-
i wish the he-177 a-5 german bomber was available in this game that has been around for 13 years and is fun to play....as per skuzzys request,lol....a late war german bomber would be soo nice to have....instead of the slow ju-88. the he 177 a-5 was faster than b-24,carried more boms than the b-24,b-17 and lancs,and had equal or better defensive gunns...although NOT as good as the b-29...........a new german bomber from mid and late war period would be nice
-
Shouldn't you be on warcraft leveling your paladin?
-
Shouldn't you be on warcraft leveling your paladin?
That is not called for. He is Italian, so he has a valid excuse for poor English.
-
That is not called for. He is Italian, so he has a valid excuse for poor English.
Check the other threads, I see a pattern following.
-
If people cry and whine about players using a Lancaster as a dive bomber are going to have a stroke if this bomber makes it to the game.
ack-ack
-
I wouldn't mind some new german bombers that can do more than give cons target practice...
+1 imo
-
I wouldn't mind some new german bombers that can do more than give cons target practice...
+1 imo
It's defensive strengths weren't its defensive guns but rather the tactics that were employed by its crews like using shallow dive bomb techniques to keep their speed up as they egress out of the target area.
ack-ack
-
It's defensive strengths weren't its defensive guns but rather the tactics that were employed by its crews like using shallow dive bomb techniques to keep their speed up as they egress out of the target area.
ack-ack
oh...nvm :bhead
-
I would like to see Me410 and He-177 in Aces High!
-
this would be a great bomber has 17mm and 20 mm cannon mounted pretty much in every direction
1 × 7.92 mm MG 81 machine gun in "fishbowl" nose glazing
1 × 20 mm MG 151 cannon in forward ventral Bola gondola position
1 × 13 mm MG 131 machine gun in rear ventral Bola gondola position
2 × 13 mm MG 131 machine guns in FDL 131Z remotely operated forward dorsal turret, full 360° traverse
1 × 13 mm MG 131 machine gun in manned Hydraulische Drehlafette DL 131I aft dorsal turret
1 × 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon in tail position
the load out is just awesome
Up to 6,000 kg (13,227 lb) of ordnance internally/7,200 kg (15,873 lb) externally
has a ton of options including 2 × LT 50 torpedoes under the wing
yeah pretty much its a lancaster with poorer flight characteristics and a better defensive armament
-
balah *gasps* YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS huhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuh.......huu uuuh! YWESSSSSSS!
-
It's defensive strengths weren't its defensive guns but rather the tactics that were employed by its crews like using shallow dive bomb techniques to keep their speed up as they egress out of the target area.
Come on AKAK, thats not entirely fair. Yes, they did essentially make a shallow dive all the way through the bomb drop and egress back to friendly air space, but its not like its guns wouldn't be effective.
Based purely on guns, I'd rank it above the B-26, and almost on par with the B-17.
-
Come on AKAK, thats not entirely fair. Yes, they did essentially make a shallow dive all the way through the bomb drop and egress back to friendly air space, but its not like its guns wouldn't be effective.
Just because it had a lot of guns doesn't make them effective as a defensive measure. Could the He-177 defend itself? Yes it could. Could it defend itself very well? Not really. That's why the shallow dive bomb approach was the most widely used tactic by He-177 crews by using the constant height and speed changes to make interception difficult. On the Eastern Front, the He-177 bombed at altitudes between 19,000ft and 23,000ft where Soviet fighters didn't operate very well and as a result the He-177 was relatively safe from interception except by the occasional individual interceptor that pressed home his attacks.
ack-ack
-
Even if it can't defend itself 'well', its guns are still a viable defense against attacking fighters. Again, I'd rank it above the B-26, and almost on par with the B-17.
The B-17's nose guns rarely get much use, and the main area where the He-177 is beaten by the B-17 is in the lack of a ball gunner possition.
-
Even if it can't defend itself 'well', its guns are still a viable defense against attacking fighters. Again, I'd rank it above the B-26, and almost on par with the B-17.
The B-17's nose guns rarely get much use, and the main area where the He-177 is beaten by the B-17 is in the lack of a ball gunner possition.
the ventral gun wouild make up for this a little and as most attacks are still from behind and low or behind and high it would be a good defensive and cause they are 20 mm cannons it would really be effective i think
-
And how effective is that 20mm tail gun on the Betty doing so far?
I thought so.
-
And on the ki-67? b29?
imo its defensive firepower would be more than enough. If you take out the engine fires (what they solved til '44), this was a good enough aircraft. The early models were complete garbage tho.
-
The problem is those "early models" were the vast majority that actually went into combat. You would have a hundred planes take off and only 50 make it to target, for all the failure rates it had. Most of those that did serve were on the Soviet front because they could fly higher than the low-alt VVS planes wanted to, and even then their true impact on the war was very limited.
IMO it's only a "wishlist" item because folks think the German planes need a B-17 equivelant. They don't. They need representative planes that are more like what went into combat, and more like what the allies ran across in combat.
If they actually knew anything about the German aircraft and their use in the war, they'd be asking for Ju-188s (also not too poorly armed) and/or Do217s, or even a Ju-88A-1 (much more needed for BOB than our Ju-88A-4). They'd be yelling for the He111 before the thought of a 177 ever began to form.
They just see the 177 as a LW B-29, which is wrong. IMO I don't think this game will ever "need" the 177, ever. There are far better planes to add that saw way more service in all theaters, that would easily take its place in any of the.. oh say "two" scenarios/planesets that might be able to use the 177 anyways.
-
So Krusty, basicly Luftwaffe sticks should just suck it up in the MA, and take a Ju-88? Yeah, cause thats fair :rolleyes:.
-
Your reading comprehension is FAIL.
-
So Krusty, basicly Luftwaffe sticks should just suck it up in the MA, and take a Ju-88? Yeah, cause thats fair :rolleyes:.
Ju188A-1 would do quite nicely I think.
-
As would the He-177.
Fact is that theres no reason NOT to get the He-177. If we get the He-177 along with an He-111, well great. If not, oh well, we're still getting something new.
-
Fact is that theres no reason NOT to get the He-177.
Fact is, there are more arguments against including than there are for including it. Generally the only reason to include it is a misguided want for a "German B-17" -- which it isn't even.
-
What real reason for not adding it is there, besides the unreliablity, which was also a big issue in the Panther, Tiger II, Me163, and B-29.
-
Detractive points already brought up (if you'd done any checking beforehand)
- Limited numbers in service, limited to a small theater of operations
- Limited to milk runs in areas where enemy fighters had little chance of defending
- Limited impact on war
- Not just unreliable, but horribly so, and would be represented in an unhistorical way if modeled in AH
- The LW doesn't need a "heavy" bomber -- this is a false notion. LW didn't have heavies. They were tactical in nature
- The best, most widely uesd, and frontline medium bombers of the war were NOT the He177.
- The same defensive armament can be found on other contemporary (representative) bombers.
The pros:
- Some dude wants a B-17 type bomber for Germans.
-
What real reason for not adding it is there, besides the unreliablity, which was also a big issue in the Panther, Tiger II, Me163, and B-29.
I don't think the He-177 really ever entered combat, it was plagued with more problems then anything and was withdrawn multiple times in combat.
-
didn't this get declined because all the engine and other mechanical problems it had can't be modelled in game?
-
I don't think the He-177 really ever entered combat, it was plagued with more problems then anything and was withdrawn multiple times in combat.
It saw plenty of combat on the Eastern Front and there were raids on England using them. It was even pressed into service as a transport on the Eastern Front, namely to aid the Axis forces at Stalingrad.
ack-ack
-
Detractive points already brought up (if you'd done any checking beforehand)
- Limited numbers in service, limited to a small theater of operations
- Limited to milk runs in areas where enemy fighters had little chance of defending
- Limited impact on war
- Not just unreliable, but horribly so, and would be represented in an unhistorical way if modeled in AH
- The LW doesn't need a "heavy" bomber -- this is a false notion. LW didn't have heavies. They were tactical in nature
- The best, most widely uesd, and frontline medium bombers of the war were NOT the He177.
- The same defensive armament can be found on other contemporary (representative) bombers.
The pros:
- Some dude wants a B-17 type bomber for Germans.
Not cons, and just plain wrong respectively.
-The Me-163 also saw service in limited numbers.
-Valid argument for not adding it before the Ju-188 or Do-217, but not really an argument for not adding it at all.
- the same can be said of the Me-163, Tiger II, and various other stuff I think you've supported (or at least been impartial to)
And the He-177 would give us an Axis heavy bomber FOR THE MA.
-
And the He-177 would give us an Axis heavy bomber FOR THE MA.
There is no "Axis" or "Allies" in the MA. The Rooks, Knights and Bishops all have access to the B-17G, B-24J, B-29A and Lancaster Mk III.
My problem with it is that, by the numbers, it would dominate the B-17G, B-24J and Lancaster Mk III and be the best free bomber in the game. That is what I dislike. The idea that a historical failure would be utterly superior to three historically successful heavy bombers.
-
There is no "Axis" or "Allies" in the MA. The Rooks, Knights and Bishops all have access to the B-17G, B-24J, B-29A and Lancaster Mk III.
My problem with it is that, by the numbers, it would dominate the B-17G, B-24J and Lancaster Mk III and be the best free bomber in the game. That is what I dislike. The idea that a historical failure would be utterly superior to three historically successful heavy bombers.
If that would be the only problem with the 177... that would be so easy to solve: perk it!
But your "role in the war" argument is valid. I think "the" mid-late war luft bomber should be the Ju-188: fast, had a decent bombload, its defensive guns werent that bad at all.
-
Ju188 is also a great looking airplane, unlike the ungainly abomination that is the He177.
-
And the He-177 would give us an Axis heavy bomber FOR THE MA.
That's the wrong mentality. The Germans didn't have or really NEED heavy bombers. It wasn't in their national doctrine of force deployment. Same goes with the Soviets, really.
As a cultural mentality (if you will) they didn't have heavy bombers, and didn't need them. They didn't wage a war that required them. They used what all other countries would consider "medium" bombers. They used lots of them. That's pretty much all they used. That's just how they worked.
They don't need a "heavy" German bomber for the MA because it just wasn't how the Germans fought in WW2.
That's the false premise I was talking about previously. They don't need a heavy MA bomber, so the request is moot.
EDIT:
P.S.:
(http://www.luftarchiv.de/flugzeuge/junkers/ju1882.jpg)
-
Thanks to Greebo, I have an He-177 substitute when I need it. :cheers:
(http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/5157/b24germ.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/546/b24germ.jpg/)
-
That's the wrong mentality. The Germans didn't have or really NEED heavy bombers. It wasn't in their national doctrine of force deployment. Same goes with the Soviets, really.
As a cultural mentality (if you will) they didn't have heavy bombers, and didn't need them. They didn't wage a war that required them. They used what all other countries would consider "medium" bombers. They used lots of them. That's pretty much all they used. That's just how they worked.
They don't need a "heavy" German bomber for the MA because it just wasn't how the Germans fought in WW2.
That's the false premise I was talking about previously. They don't need a heavy MA bomber, so the request is moot.
Its the MA you moron, who cares about what they needed historically. If it saw use at squadron strenght, got a kill, and entered serial production, it meets requirments. Hell, as long as it saw service during WWII it meets requirments.
Special Events are for the history. Since we have lancasters dive bombing from 3k, P-51's shooting down Spitfires and other P-51's, A6M's shooting down bettys, etc, saying 'they didn't need a heavy bomber, it wasn't their mentality' is a pretty piss-poor argument for blocking the He-177.
-
Thanks to Greebo, I have an He-177 substitute when I need it. :cheers:
(http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/5157/b24germ.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/546/b24germ.jpg/)
That's cool
-
Special Events are for the history. Since we have lancasters dive bombing from 3k, P-51's shooting down Spitfires and other P-51's, A6M's shooting down bettys, etc, saying 'they didn't need a heavy bomber, it wasn't their mentality' is a pretty piss-poor argument for blocking the He-177.
Wanting it just to replace a plane already in the game you can already fly any time you want for free (no perks even) is a piss poor argument for including the 177.
In the MA-only mentality, you don't need it. You've got others already just as good or better than it. As has already been pointed out, there is no axis-v-allied in the MA. Fly a friggin' B-17.
-
That's the wrong mentality. The Germans didn't have or really NEED heavy bombers. It wasn't in their national doctrine of force deployment. Same goes with the Soviets, really.
As a cultural mentality (if you will) they didn't have heavy bombers, and didn't need them. They didn't wage a war that required them. They used what all other countries would consider "medium" bombers. They used lots of them. That's pretty much all they used. That's just how they worked.
They don't need a "heavy" German bomber for the MA because it just wasn't how the Germans fought in WW2.
That's the false premise I was talking about previously. They don't need a heavy MA bomber, so the request is moot.
EDIT:
P.S.:
(http://www.luftarchiv.de/flugzeuge/junkers/ju1882.jpg)
The Greif was a heavy bomber and the DID use it in WW2 so what you are saying is not accurate.
That they made a mess out of it is a different story.
-
this would be a great bomber has 17mm and 20 mm cannon mounted pretty much in every direction
1 × 7.92 mm MG 81 machine gun in "fishbowl" nose glazing
1 × 20 mm MG 151 cannon in forward ventral Bola gondola position
1 × 13 mm MG 131 machine gun in rear ventral Bola gondola position
2 × 13 mm MG 131 machine guns in FDL 131Z remotely operated forward dorsal turret, full 360° traverse
1 × 13 mm MG 131 machine gun in manned Hydraulische Drehlafette DL 131I aft dorsal turret
1 × 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon in tail position
the load out is just awesome
Up to 6,000 kg (13,227 lb) of ordnance internally/7,200 kg (15,873 lb) externally
has a ton of options including 2 × LT 50 torpedoes under the wing
yeah pretty much its a lancaster with poorer flight characteristics and a better defensive armament
Actually, I think it could carry up to four torpedoes:
(http://www.kbismarck.org/photos/heinkel177-torpedo01.jpg)
Which is nothing to be surprised about given that even a Do-217 could do just that:
(http://www.kbismarck.org/photos/dornier217-torpedo01.jpg)
But, the torpedo-carrying version was cancelled when the war took a turn for the worse, so no TT for the Greif. Only a measly 7.000Kg bombload.
(http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/He177A_load_range.jpg)
JAG
-
Wanting it just to replace a plane already in the game you can already fly any time you want for free (no perks even) is a piss poor argument for including the 177.
In the MA-only mentality, you don't need it. You've got others already just as good or better than it. As has already been pointed out, there is no axis-v-allied in the MA. Fly a friggin' B-17.
Following this mentality, use in the MA is completely irrelevent for most of the un-added planes and vehicles. There would be no reason to get a Yak-3, Ki-43, Ki-100, nothing new from an MA standpoint. Non, zero, zip. Do you realize that you're essentially saying we shouldn't get the Glostor Meteor, since its historical significance is basicly non-existent, and we already have the 262?
-
Following this mentality, use in the MA is completely irrelevent for most of the un-added planes and vehicles. There would be no reason to get a Yak-3, Ki-43, Ki-100, nothing new from an MA standpoint. Non, zero, zip. Do you realize that you're essentially saying we shouldn't get the Glostor Meteor, since its historical significance is basicly non-existent, and we already have the 262?
i agree here. its like saying we dont need the spitfires besides the 16. because its best.
-
i agree here. its like saying we dont need the spitfires besides the 16. because its best.
Kinda the opposite actually. We don't want to see a historical failure become the best bomber in the MA. Others want that to happen just because it is German.
-
If that would be the only problem with the 177... that would be so easy to solve: perk it!
But your "role in the war" argument is valid. I think "the" mid-late war luft bomber should be the Ju-188: fast, had a decent bombload, its defensive guns werent that bad at all.
Coding it so you can't go to it's true full power and perking it should do the trick. Or you can go to full power, but your engines catch fire if in it too long. Personally, I think coding the governor into it would be easier.
I know it's from wiki but...
"With the introduction of the DB 610 came several improvements including the relocation of the engine oil tank, the lengthening of the engine mountings by 20 cm (8 in), the complete redesign of the exhaust system which also facilitated the installation of exhaust dampers for night missions, and the setting of a power limitation on the engines which resulted in greater reliability. These modifications, supposedly numbering 56 of both major and minor varieties, were successful as far as eliminating engine fires were concerned, but other minor problems with the transfer gearbox between the two component engines of each "power system" and their shared propeller remained."
If what I read was correct, the He-177 A-5 used the DB 610's. If we were talking about an earlier version of the He-117, prior to the A-3, then having the engines catch fire easily when hit would be a more valid option.
I hope we get the Do-217, just so we FINALLY have a Dornier in the lineup. :) :aok
-
Kinda the opposite actually. We don't want to see a historical failure become the best bomber in the MA. Others want that to happen just because it is German.
Its something simmilar to why i had bad feelings about the Meteor: a plane what never seen any flying enemy aircraft yet it would be the best plane in game... odd enough, isnt it? But thats for an other topic.
Btw why it would be the best bomber in AH? Its maximum speed was around 550kmph ~ 345mph @ 19500 feet unloaded, whats only 30mph more than the b24 at that altitude. Being a relative light aircraft, without exact information i can only guess how badly the big bombload affected its performance... pretty badly i guess: my bet is on a zirka 280mph loaded cruising speed.
Also, the "Flaming Coffin" effect was solved when they changed the DB-606 (dual DB-603) to a lighter DB-610 (dual DB-605) on the A-3 and A-5 versions. Of course the performance was reduced as the 605 is a smaller engine than the 603, and the plane still couldnt operate at full speed for a long time due to engine overheating, at least the random flames werent causing disasters anymore. It meant the planes cruising speed was quite a bit slower than the maximum, especially when it was loaded. This could be represented by a very limited WEP usage.
Yes, its early series were complete disasters but not the later models. ~1150 was produced from this aircraft, ~345 A-5s and ~500 A-3s with the improved DA-610 engine.
I dont think it should be "the" german bomber added, just trying to prove your "über yet complete crap" argument isnt valid. It wasnt über, nor complete crap, and i think it might have a place in this game, in the far future of course. But there are way more inportant models what are missing from AH and the ju-188 is one of those.
-
When it finally dawned on them that they started a "World War" they wanted heavy bombers very much. Unfortunatly for them they simply didnt have the time or resources available to produce effective ones. Hitler loved the idea of bombers. They began to seriously discuss the idea even before the war started and by '42 had several designs ready, some of which made it to prototype. In Early summer of '41 the first of the huge city busting bomber raids began with Munster being the target. A year later Cologne was heavily damaged by over 1,000 bombers. But the real kicker was the utter destruction of Hamburg a year later during a week long campaign by Brit and Yank bombers.
That's the wrong mentality. The Germans didn't have or really NEED heavy bombers. It wasn't in their national doctrine of force deployment. Same goes with the Soviets, really.
As a cultural mentality (if you will) they didn't have heavy bombers, and didn't need them. They didn't wage a war that required them. They used what all other countries would consider "medium" bombers. They used lots of them. That's pretty much all they used. That's just how they worked.
They both needed and wanted them. They also waged a war that required them. Unfortunately for them they just werent prepared and by the time the Germans went into full wartime production it was to late.
-
The idea of perking the failure that was the He177 because it is so much better than the B-17G, B-24J and Lancaster is absurd.
Even the the 610s its reliability and serviceability remained far, far below acceptable levels.
The single biggest thing I bet the He177 did for the Germans is present huge, tempting targets for Allied strafing attacks, sparing the more valuable Bf109s and Fw190s.
-
The max internal load of the He 177 was 6t, don't know if there was capability for 1t more external loads.
The DB 610 was as reliable as two standard DB 605 after the oil foam problems were sorted out by DB.
The He 177 achieved the 550 km/h in 6.8 km altitude, that's FTH with climb and combat power rating, with ermercency power it would even be faster
-
Even the the 610s its reliability and serviceability remained far, far below acceptable levels.
Just like the Jumo 004... :noid
-
Kinda the opposite actually. We don't want to see a historical failure become the best bomber in the MA. Others want that to happen just because it is German.
The Greif wasnt a failure, the A5 version solved the aircraft's problems and it saw action, but by then the Germans were out of fuel and had more pressing issues at hand (like being overrun by the Russians and the bombing campaign) so all bombers were grounded. Calling it a failure is akin to calling the B-29 and many other aircraft failures just because their initial models were troublesome and their crews inadequately trained to handle them.
II/KG100 reported 90% serviceability for the type in mid-late 1944, you can find the reference on Griehl, pp 150. It seems that training and the new engines made a big difference, with only pilots new to the type having problems, like any novice would.
Debrody, Griehl indicates 565 to 789 A5s built, depending on the sources. I also recall that the DB-606 mas made of two DB-601s, not the later DB-603s which when coupled made the DB-613 and was considered as an alternative for the DB-610 and the 4 individual engine versions (He-177Bs).
Denniss the 7t figure comes from the Greifs manual, it could be an approximation since one of its load options was 4 x SC1700, that is 6,8t right there.
JAG
-
Haha, allright Jag, i was just looking up the wiki... another example how "accurate" it is.
-
i wish the he-177 a-5 german bomber was available in this game that has been around for 13 years and is fun to play....as per skuzzys request,lol....a late war german bomber would be soo nice to have....instead of the slow ju-88. the he 177 a-5 was faster than b-24,carried more boms than the b-24,b-17 and lancs,and had equal or better defensive gunns...although NOT as good as the b-29...........a new german bomber from mid and late war period would be nice
were still waiting for the 410.. we might get the he-177 in a couple of years dont hold your breath.+1he-177
-
When it finally dawned on them that they started a "World War" they wanted heavy bombers very much. Unfortunatly for them they simply didnt have the time or resources available to produce effective ones. Hitler loved the idea of bombers. They began to seriously discuss the idea even before the war started and by '42 had several designs ready, some of which made it to prototype. In Early summer of '41 the first of the huge city busting bomber raids began with Munster being the target. A year later Cologne was heavily damaged by over 1,000 bombers. But the real kicker was the utter destruction of Hamburg a year later during a week long campaign by Brit and Yank bombers.
They both needed and wanted them. They also waged a war that required them. Unfortunately for them they just werent prepared and by the time the Germans went into full wartime production it was to late.
That's not an accurate description at all. Not in the least.
-
Then what, would you tell us?
Germany had serious restrictions after the WW1. They couldnt build a straight heavy bomber, even tho there were projects in the mid-late-'30s to spoof them as civil aircrafts.
Also their decription of the "heavy bomber" was a fast twin engined aircraft at that time: ju-88, do-17 etc. Why? Their conception was the Blitzkrieg: win the war quickly with panzer divisions and close air support, without destroying the victim's industry (they wanted to use it in the future). Heavyes arent so potent in divebombing on tanks...
As we know, the blitzkrieg failed at '41 December, under Moscow. The conception changed too: they had to play the russia's game, the one with better supplies wins. Of course they did everything to destroy the russian industries, but they were already moved behind the Ural. They needed and wanted an aircraft what can go that far with a large bombload, also do it quickly... And voila, in mid-42, the german heavy bomber arrives: He-177, a revolutionary conception, thrown into action as quickly as possible, with next to no testing and evaluation. How it could not be a complete failure?
It took a little bit more than a year to fix its engine problems, but after that, the aircraft worked just fine. Another question, as like someone said before, the complete allied air superiority made its life very hard.
For those who think, its just a german "hot rod"...
How many P47Ms were used in combat? What are the reports about their reliability? ;)
Im still on the Ju-188 side tho. Not only couse that was a better construction by nature, but it also was built in much larger numbers, was used widely in the war, and a much more flexible airframe, meaning one 3d model could be used on many very different sub-types.
-
The Germans wanted heavy bombers from the start, they had a heavy bomber program but its first iteration was abandoned when the types developed, and specially their engines, proved inadequate. Then the general advocating a strategic force died and the strategic bomber projects went into the back burner and were eventually contaminated by "dive bombing" requirements, that crippled the project and prevented the fielding of an effective strategic force. They knew they needed strategic bombers, they just wanted them to be versatile beyond practicality.
The Greif was a contemporary of the Manchester/Lancaster, when the Germans felt in 1943 the urgency the British felt in 1940 they also dispensed with the coupled engines and reverted to a 4 engine layout in the He-177B. But by then the war had gone to hell and all Greifs went with it.
Debrody - It happens. ;)
JAG
-
There is no "Axis" or "Allies" in the MA. The Rooks, Knights and Bishops all have access to the B-17G, B-24J, B-29A and Lancaster Mk III.
My problem with it is that, by the numbers, it would dominate the B-17G, B-24J and Lancaster Mk III and be the best free bomber in the game. That is what I dislike. The idea that a historical failure would be utterly superior to three historically successful heavy bombers.
Maybe not by side but there are those of us like JG11 who fly nothing but German in the late war MA.
-
The Germans wanted heavy bombers from the start, they had a heavy bomber program but its first iteration was abandoned when the types developed and specially their engines proved inadequate. Then the general advocating a strategic force died and the strategic bomber projects went into the back burner and were eventually contaminated by "dive bombing" requirements, that crippled the project and preventing the fielding of an effective strategic force. They knew they needed strategic bombers, they just wanted them to be versatile beyond practicality.
The Greif was a contemporary of the Manchester/Lancaster, when the Germans felt in 1943 the urgency the British felt in 1940 they also dispensed with the coupled engines and reverted to a 4 engine layout in the He-177B. But by then the war had gone to hell and all Greifs went with it.
The Manchester/Lancaster and Halifax were both developed per Air Ministry Specification P.13/36 for a twin engined heavy bomber using the Rolls Royce Vulture or or Napier Saber engines and issued in 1936. The RAF's decision to go to Heavy Bombers well predates the war.
Maybe not by side but there are those of us like JG11 who fly nothing but German in the late war MA.
That is a self limitation that does not warrant dev resources to cater to it.
-
The Manchester/Lancaster and Halifax were both developed per Air Ministry Specification P.13/36 for a twin engined heavy bomber using the Rolls Royce Vulture or or Napier Saber engines and issued in 1936. The RAF's decision to go to Heavy Bombers well predates the war.That is a self limitation that does not warrant dev resources to cater to it.
"Bomber A" requirements were issued on June 3, 1936. That should make unnecessary to mention the 1934 "Ural Bomber" (Do-19 and Ju-89 4-engined heavies) program that predated "Bomber A" to settle the point. The He-177 was developed in response to "Bomber A" and made its maiden flight in November 9th, 1939, 4 or so months after the Manchester. As you can see the German requirement for a heavy bomber also predated the war and the German crate was developed along the Brit craft.
In both countries the coupled engines were dropped when crap hit the fan, luckily for Britain the Germans turned on the Russians which allowed them to fully develop and field the Lancaster out of the Manchester fiasco; the Germans didnt get that chance, and the He-177B/He-277 was one of the first casualties when the Russians came knocking in 1944.
Have the Germans drop the coupled engines early on and the Luftwaffe could have fielded a capable strategic bomber in large numbers by 1942, just like the Lanc, and then the Germans would have had a capable maritime strike aircraft and a strategic bomber to hit at least some of the Russian factories instead of having to rely on modified airliners and obsolete He-111s. But the top nazis in the Luftwaffe were just useless, so no heavy bombers and no Fw-187s to escort them either, only Zerstorer designs needlessly encumbered with extra crewmen.
This is an aircraft that saw combat in numbers and was free of most if not all of the problems faced by the earlier marks, there is no reason for it not be included given the game's criteria for inclusion. Besides, a 1941 bomber as the only non-perked German bomber is just too little and too weak, either for the MA or as a sample of German bombers.
A Ju-188 would be nice too, but the He-177 is undoubtedly the big prize.
JAG
-
+1 for the HE-177 we need a german heavy bomber the 88 is alright but just doesn't have the range
-
German wikipedia has a complete list of how many He 177 were built (accepted by the RLM) by subversion and manufacturer.
-
That's not an accurate description at all. Not in the least.
Actually, he's pretty much spot on.
How can you say "They didn't need" something? THEY LOST THE WAR.
Look up the Amerika Bomber... that should be a great place for you to start reading on just how badly Germany wanted and/or needed strategic bombers.
Almost every single major player in politics, industry, or the military in Germany cited the allied strategic bombing campaign as their reason for losing the war. If you wish, I can provide citations of direct quotes on this.
-
tunnelrat, you're ignorant of what losing the war vs what they need actually means.
The entire pre-war bomber requirements for Germany were light and fast. Speed was the defense. Ever since the Spanish Civil War they had the idea that faster bombers could get through and bomb without being intercepted. It didn't work so well but they kept pushing this idea.
Further, the entire bomber fleet was made up of these types of bombers. They didn't need anything larger. That's a fact. They didn't need to have 4 engines to bomb the Soviets or the Brits. Yes, they knew they'd be attacking the Soviets. It was the plan from the start. There was never a doubt that Germany and Soviet Union would attack each other. Historically they had proven they both wanted each others' land and they both KNEW this. The only reason they had a treaty was to buy time. Stalin thought his massive horde of planes would win the day, but found out the horde can't be obsolete. He was also caught a bit off guard, having just purged 80% of his command staff out of paranoia, and wasn't expecting such a fast turnaround from the British front to the Soviet one.
They would have been working out "heavy" bombers in the early 1930s if they needed them. They did not. Twin engine "medium" bombers were far more flexible and had nearly the same range.
The amerika bomber was a pipe dream to go along with the nuclear bomb they were trying to develop. It wasn't going to be a solution in any reality of WW2. It would have been a rare 1-off, low-production model (probably single digits ever built). IF it ever would have been used at all. It was always speed. Speed, range, altitude. The 1000 requirement was 1000km range, 1000km/hour, 1000kg bombload. That was their ideal they kept pushing for, lighter, faster, MORE planes.
Even up to the end, when all sorts of fancy pipe dreams were being given the green light, the German bomber force was still twin engine medium bombers.
What they NEEDED was a defense. Not a long-range B-17 clone. They didn't need that. They couldn't have used that. That wouldn't have helped them in any way, really.
-
Oh boy...
tunnelrat, you're ignorant of what losing the war vs what they need actually means.
The entire pre-war bomber requirements for Germany were light and fast. Speed was the defense. Ever since the Spanish Civil War they had the idea that faster bombers could get through and bomb without being intercepted. It didn't work so well but they kept pushing this idea.
Further, the entire bomber fleet was made up of these types of bombers. They didn't need anything larger. That's a fact. They didn't need to have 4 engines to bomb the Soviets or the Brits. Yes, they knew they'd be attacking the Soviets. It was the plan from the start. There was never a doubt that Germany and Soviet Union would attack each other. Historically they had proven they both wanted each others' land and they both KNEW this. The only reason they had a treaty was to buy time. Stalin thought his massive horde of planes would win the day, but found out the horde can't be obsolete. He was also caught a bit off guard, having just purged 80% of his command staff out of paranoia, and wasn't expecting such a fast turnaround from the British front to the Soviet one.
They would have been working out "heavy" bombers in the early 1930s if they needed them. They did not. Twin engine "medium" bombers were far more flexible and had nearly the same range.
The amerika bomber was a pipe dream to go along with the nuclear bomb they were trying to develop. It wasn't going to be a solution in any reality of WW2. It would have been a rare 1-off, low-production model (probably single digits ever built). IF it ever would have been used at all. It was always speed. Speed, range, altitude. The 1000 requirement was 1000km range, 1000km/hour, 1000kg bombload. That was their ideal they kept pushing for, lighter, faster, MORE planes.
Even up to the end, when all sorts of fancy pipe dreams were being given the green light, the German bomber force was still twin engine medium bombers.
What they NEEDED was a defense. Not a long-range B-17 clone. They didn't need that. They couldn't have used that. That wouldn't have helped them in any way, really.
What do you make of the FACT that they had a heavy bomber program since 1934?
What do you make of the FACT that they had a heavy bomber program dubbed the "Ural Bomber", for which the 4-engined Do-19 and Ju-89 were developed?
What do you make of the FACT that they also had a new heavy bomber program since 1936 called "Bomber A", as opposed to the new medium program called "Bomber B"?
What do you make of the FACT that the He-177 heavy bomber was a product of the "Bomber A" program?
What do you make of the FACT that the He-177 heavy bomber EXISTED if there was no requirement for a heavy bomber?
German doctrine had an emphasis on fast medium bombers, but the Germans did not abandon the development of a heavy bomber as the He-177 proves. Or should prove if denial does not get in the way.
Regarding the utility of a heavy for the Luftwaffe, they had plenty of targets in Russia that needed the attentions of a long ranged bomber, a fleet of He-177Bs in 1942 would have allowed them to hit soviet factories with impunity and disturb tank production, for example. Not to mention that they would have had a far more capable maritime recon/strike platform for U-boat cooperation.
You really need to read something about German aircraft development.
JAG
-
Oh boy...
What do you make of the FACT that they had a heavy bomber program since 1934?
What do you make of the FACT that they had a heavy bomber program dubbed the "Ural Bomber", for which the 4-engined Do-19 and Ju-89 were developed?
What do you make of the FACT that they also had a new heavy bomber program since 1936 called "Bomber A", as opposed to the new medium program called "Bomber B"?
What do you make of the FACT that the He-177 heavy bomber was a product of the "Bomber A" program?
What do you make of the FACT that the He-177 heavy bomber EXISTED if there was no requirement for a heavy bomber?
German doctrine had an emphasis on fast medium bombers, but the Germans did not abandon the development of a heavy bomber as the He-177 proves. Or should prove if denial does not get in the way.
Regarding the utility of a heavy for the Luftwaffe, they had plenty of targets in Russia that needed the attentions of a long ranged bomber, a fleet of He-177Bs in 1942 would have allowed them to hit soviet factories with impunity and disturb tank production, for example. Not to mention that they would have had a far more capable maritime recon/strike platform for U-boat cooperation.
You really need to read something about German aircraft development.
JAG
Didn't the Germans cancel their heavy bomber program in the late 1930s just prior to the start of the war and cancelled an order for 400 heavy bombers? At least prior to and at the beginning of the war, the Germans didn't really put too much stock in strategic bombing and heavy bombers.
ack-ack
-
Didn't the Germans cancel their heavy bomber program in the late 1930s just prior to the start of the war and cancelled an order for 400 heavy bombers? At least prior to and at the beginning of the war, the Germans didn't really put too much stock in strategic bombing and heavy bombers.
ack-ack
The Germans never put the value in it, correctly or not, that the British and Americans did. It is extremely simplistic and misleading to equate the 1936 order for the He177 program and the 1936 specification that resulted in the Lancaster and Halifax while ignoring the actual resources and priority given to the respective projects are not at all similar. The resulting 13,555 Lancasters and Halifaxes against the 1169 He177s is a good measure of that and that is ignoring the unsuccessful Manchesters and Stirlings that were also built.
-
Didn't the Germans cancel their heavy bomber program in the late 1930s just prior to the start of the war and cancelled an order for 400 heavy bombers?
Yes.
And the other important difference to the Allied strategic bombers is that the HE 177 only left the drawing board because of the ability to dive bomb (even if they soon stopped to use it that way). That was the requirement. So it's not a stretch to say the 177 was intended to be a heavy strategic bomber, but more or less a super-heavy Stuka (which is actually a generic term for divebomber in german).
The one true heavy bomber program was stopped with the cancellation of the Do 19 and the ju 89, both being true contemporaries of the B-17.
-
Yes.
And the other important difference to the Allied strategic bombers is that the HE 177 only left the drawing board because of the ability to dive bomb (even if they soon stopped to use it that way). That was the requirement. So it's not a stretch to say the 177 was intended to be a heavy strategic bomber, but more or less a super-heavy Stuka (which is actually a generic term for divebomber in german).
The one true heavy bomber program was stopped with the cancellation of the Do 19 and the ju 89, both being true contemporaries of the B-17.
I did some research a while back on the DO 19 and Ju89, while interesting aircrafts I believe they would of been plagued with the same problem He-111s and Do-17's had: Weakness in defensive positions.
He-177 is the closest to the B-17 as I can see from toughness to gun positions - Boeing did an amazing job defending the B-17 by upgrading its defensive armaments and protection, I don't see the Germans being able to make change to such a design as the B-17 had.
-
I did some research a while back on the DO 19 and Ju89, while interesting aircrafts I believe they would of been plagued with the same problem He-111s and Do-17's had: Weakness in defensive positions.the B-17 had.
They both were cancelled in a very early stage, they had a lot more room for armament evolution than the more compact medium bombers.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/Dornier_Do_19_in_flight_c1938.JPG/300px-Dornier_Do_19_in_flight_c1938.JPG)
Do-19
The early B-17s hadn't been that heavily armed either, iirc the first prototypes had only a small number of rifle-sized MGs.
-
"Boeing did an amazing job defending the B-17 by upgrading its defensive armaments and protection, I don't see the Germans being able to make change to such a design as the B-17 had."
Care to explain you thought a little bit more?
Exactly how was defensive armament upgraded, or protection to that matter?
What did they do that the Germans were not already doing or could not have done?
-C+
-
They both were cancelled in a very early stage, they had a lot more room for armament evolution than the more compact medium bombers.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/Dornier_Do_19_in_flight_c1938.JPG/300px-Dornier_Do_19_in_flight_c1938.JPG)
Do-19
The early B-17s hadn't been that heavily armed either, iirc the first prototypes had only a small number of rifle-sized MGs.
I wish we could of seen any kind of evolution of either bomber, makes me in a way wish we had prototypes, but in another way I don't want to see the outcome of that :)
/G8n would be a very interesting Japanese "B-29"
-
"Boeing did an amazing job defending the B-17 by upgrading its defensive armaments and protection, I don't see the Germans being able to make change to such a design as the B-17 had."
Care to explain you thought a little bit more?
Exactly how was defensive armament upgraded, or protection to that matter?
What did they do that the Germans were not already doing or could not have done?
-C+
If you look at the B-17 production from B-F models in terms of changes to the production - the defensive armament was radically upgraded from a handful of .303 caliber rifles to 11+ 50 cal machine guns, G model being the latest added a chin with twin 50s.
Far Difference between a B-17D Stationed at March AF in Philippines and a B-17F stationed in England in '43.
The Ju-88 was versatile enough it could of been upgunned, I always questioned how come the German's never bothered to defend it (along with other bombers) after the Battle of Britain clearly showed it could not defend itself.
-
I did some research a while back on the DO 19 and Ju89, while interesting aircrafts I believe they would of been plagued with the same problem He-111s and Do-17's had: Weakness in defensive positions.
Early B-17s were also highly vulnerable with significant blind spots, the RAF finding them not ready for combat operations.
He-177 is the closest to the B-17 as I can see from toughness to gun positions - Boeing did an amazing job defending the B-17 by upgrading its defensive armaments and protection, I don't see the Germans being able to make change to such a design as the B-17 had.
Eric Brown seemed to think the He177 to be fragile for an aircraft its size.
-
Didn't the Germans cancel their heavy bomber program in the late 1930s just prior to the start of the war and cancelled an order for 400 heavy bombers? At least prior to and at the beginning of the war, the Germans didn't really put too much stock in strategic bombing and heavy bombers.
ack-ack
The replaced the 1934 Ural bomber requirement by the 1936 Bomber A requirement, that included dive-bombing capabilities. No contract was signed for serial production either Do-19s or Ju-89s, ever.
The Germans never put the value in it, correctly or not, that the British and Americans did. It is extremely simplistic and misleading to equate the 1936 order for the He177 program and the 1936 specification that resulted in the Lancaster and Halifax while ignoring the actual resources and priority given to the respective projects are not at all similar. The resulting 13,555 Lancasters and Halifaxes against the 1169 He177s is a good measure of that and that is ignoring the unsuccessful Manchesters and Stirlings that were also built.
This is what you said earlier:
The Manchester/Lancaster and Halifax were both developed per Air Ministry Specification P.13/36 for a twin engined heavy bomber using the Rolls Royce Vulture or or Napier Saber engines and issued in 1936. The RAF's decision to go to Heavy Bombers well predates the war.
Basically you were trying to imply that the British started earlier and therefore had attached greater importance to heavy bombers, that was not the case since both projects were simultaneous. The Germans did prioritize the Ju-88 development over the He-177 and were right about that given the circumstances at the time (level bombing was quite inaccurate until the 1941 fielding of the Loft 7), but the reasons for the difference in numbers are several, among those is that heavy bombers were pretty much the only weapon available for the British to attack the Germans so obviously they would concentrate on making them, but that does not reflect the importance attributed pre-war to a particular project.
The number of He-177s is low for similar reasons, the Germans relevant enemy were the Russians and therefore they would focus on tanks and tactical equipment plus, the Germans insisted on trying to make the coupled engines work instead of bypassing the source of most of the problems by using individual engines. Since the aircraft wasnt reliable production was slow and obsolete He-111s were still being built.
In any case the point was and still is, the Germans did not constrict themselves or attribute importance to medium bombers only as someone was saying, they preferred mediums but understood the need for a heavy bomber, it just happens that they were incredibly stubborn and made a mess out of it by issuing an immature aircraft to half-trained crews with inadequate support, and they did it so because they understood the need for a heavy bomber and they needed it fast!
And the other important difference to the Allied strategic bombers is that the HE 177 only left the drawing board because of the ability to dive bomb (even if they soon stopped to use it that way). That was the requirement. So it's not a stretch to say the 177 was intended to be a heavy strategic bomber, but more or less a super-heavy Stuka (which is actually a generic term for divebomber in german).
The one true heavy bomber program was stopped with the cancellation of the Do 19 and the ju 89, both being true contemporaries of the B-17.
Not quite, they wanted a heavy bomber that could dive bomb, not a heavy dive bomber, which is why the 1936 request meant the cancellation of the 1934 projects, why the initial models carried aiming mechanisms for both level and dive bombing and why the He-177 was kept when the dive-bombing requirement was dropped. Had it been a mere heavy dive bomber the Greif would have died once the concept proved impractical.
Had two of the prototypes had been built with individual engines as requested by Heinkel, well, the aircraft story would likely be very different.
I did some research a while back on the DO 19 and Ju89, while interesting aircrafts I believe they would of been plagued with the same problem He-111s and Do-17's had: Weakness in defensive positions.
He-177 is the closest to the B-17 as I can see from toughness to gun positions - Boeing did an amazing job defending the B-17 by upgrading its defensive armaments and protection, I don't see the Germans being able to make change to such a design as the B-17 had.
Nope, not at all, the German projects were far better armed than the contemporary versions of the B-17 from the start, they had dorsal and ventral turrets with 2 x 20mm MGFF each in one of the Ju-89 prototypes, for example. Being large aircraft and also having tail position from the start then upgunning should not have been a problem.
Eric Brown seemed to think the He177 to be fragile for an aircraft its size.
The aircraft's structure was reinforced for inclined flight/dive bombing, it was an sturdy aircraft but the engines were its Achilles hell.
-
"If you look at the B-17 production from B-F models in terms of changes to the production - the defensive armament was radically upgraded from a handful of .303 caliber rifles to 11+ 50 cal machine guns, G model being the latest added a chin with twin 50s. "
Well, yes that is what they did, and much more. The late 30's thinking was that bombers did not even need escorts but could do all the defense by themselves. The B-17 did not even have a tail position to begin with and Airforce insisted having one so Boeing added one. I'd say it is the most important defensive position in a bomber that does not rely on speed but to bulk formations, and the tail position in B-17 is not even powered and thus inherently inaccurate -the usability of other manual positions you can only guess. The late "Cheyenne" type had more traverse, better sight system and better view but the guns were still manually operated so the accuracy was likely not better than with the earlier model. Lucky for B-17 it did have two somewhat effective turrets top and bottom with the bottom one being hampered by terrible visibility. The point is that the defensive power of a B-17 probably was not what it is in this game which may lead to incorrect opinions of its real-life effectiveness. This can be well pointed out if you consider we had a "Rammjäger" FW190A8 in game. That variant would not be a problem to AH B-17 tail gunner as he would simply saw its wings off from 800yds distance and ask if it wants more in some other place -and that is not how it happened IRL. But he AH B-17 does not have the luxury of massed firepower of a bulk formation so from MA mentality point of view it is OK, I guess.
***
It may well be asked why they wanted to build dive capability to He177 in the first place?
It could be thought that having experience of massed bombing from BoB and examining the results of allied night and day bombing I can't help but think that they wanted a fast bomber with good payload that could take out a target with a surgical blow as Germany simply did not have capability to build such bomber armadas as Brits and US. And at that time that kind of accuracy could be established only by bombing from a dive. If we consider Ju-88 and its dive capability I'm not sure how much better it would have been if it was built without it. While loaded it would still not match a fighter in speed or maneuverability, but at least if could be used in both strategic and tactical bombing as it was an effective dive bomber. The tactical aspect of being also very evident in German thinking was the desire to put all kinds of huge guns in forward positions in their bombers, as in He-177.
-C+
PS. A bit too extensive pondering of subject in Wishlist in my opinion. We need a direct linking from a Wishlist topic to Aircraft and Vehicles so we could keep the topics in correct places. ;)
-
I did some research a while back on the DO 19 and Ju89, while interesting aircrafts I believe they would of been plagued with the same problem He-111s and Do-17's had: Weakness in defensive positions.
He-177 is the closest to the B-17 as I can see from toughness to gun positions - Boeing did an amazing job defending the B-17 by upgrading its defensive armaments and protection, I don't see the Germans being able to make change to such a design as the B-17 had.
Forgot this.
No, this would have been the tail turret of either the A6 or He-177B-5, 4 x 13mm:
(http://www.aviastar.org/gallery/234/234_13.jpg)
The dorsal turret was the 2x20mm version of the already fielded FHL 131:
(http://i700.photobucket.com/albums/ww9/fokker_dr1/torreta_FDL_131_Z.jpg)
For the A7/B7 versions 4 and 2 gun turrets taken from the Ju-290's nose and waist positions were planned.
The Ju-88 was versatile enough it could of been upgunned, I always questioned how come the German's never bothered to defend it (along with other bombers) after the Battle of Britain clearly showed it could not defend itself.
The armament was upgraded in the Ju-188 version and no, no bomber could defend itself as the Schweinfurt, Ploesti and early RAF raids proved. No escorts = dead bombers.
(http://www.palba.cz/forumfoto/albums/userpics/10145/normal_Kabina_V63_1.jpg)
It may well be asked why they wanted to build dive capability to He177 in the first place?
It could be thought that having experience of massed bombing from BoB and examining the results of allied night and day bombing I can't help but think that they wanted a fast bomber with good payload that could take out a target with a surgical blow as Germany simply did not have capability to build such bomber armadas as Brits and US. And at that time that kind of accuracy could be established only by bombing from a dive. If we consider Ju-88 and its dive capability I'm not sure how much better it would have been if it was built without it. While loaded it would still not match a fighter in speed or maneuverability, but at least if could be used in both strategic and tactical bombing as it was an effective dive bomber. The tactical aspect of being also very evident in German thinking was the desire to put all kinds of huge guns in forward positions in their bombers, as in He-177.
The dive bombing spec dates from 1936, when level bombing was quite inaccurate. It was dropped in 1942 when it was shown to be both impractical and no longer necessary, so the Allied bombing campaign had nothing to do with it.
JAG
-
There were almost 1,200 HE-177s made...
It's not a matter of if...
-
There were almost 1,200 HE-177s made...
It's not a matter of if...
No, it is a question of how to model it so that something of its historical flaws come through and it doesn't simply dominate the historically successful B-17, B-24 and Lancaster.
My suggestion would be to make the engines relatively flammable when damaged and to make it significantly less durable, particularly the fuselage, than the other heavies.
-
No, it is a question of how to model it so that something of its historical flaws come through and it doesn't simply dominate the historically successful B-17, B-24 and Lancaster.
My suggestion would be to make the engines relatively flammable when damaged and to make it significantly less durable, particularly the fuselage, than the other heavies.
Oh, I agree completely...
And I am not trying to be a jerk here, but there are already tons of notoriously unreliable vehicles in the game, are any of those modeled as such?
I think your idea on making the engines achilles heels is a good idea, and I certainly don't think that the max bombload should be anything approaching the theoretical... if not, then the plane should be heavily perked simply for balance reasons... the ME-262 doesn't start suffer engine fires, the 163 doesn't randomly explode, and every other Koenigstiger isn't sitting with a dead engine or stuck in the mud... but they are all perked... I don't think the HE-177 should be different unless concessions are made as you stated above.
On the other hand, I think it SHOULD be what it was... and that is a late war heavy bomber in every sense of the word... just because it spent most of its time on the Eastern Front and out of the limelight doesn't mean it should be a turd.
-
and that is a late war heavy bomber in every sense of the word.
I don't think that is true. I think it was a problematic Frakenstein that they were not able to get working at anything like a satisfactory rate until late in the war that was a contemporary of the Lancaster and B-24.
-
I don't think that is true. I think it was a problematic Frakenstein that they were not able to get working at anything like a satisfactory rate until late in the war that was a contemporary of the Lancaster and B-24.
I agree wholeheartedly that they did not get it "right" until late in the war, and soon after it was mainly grounded. But, the He-177-A5 (being the definitive model of which 800+ were made) was not the problematic Frankenstein that the previous models were.
The heavily perked B-29 had more than it's fair share of troubles for some time.
-
The heavily perked B-29 had more than it's fair share of troubles for some time.
It did, but not nearly to the point that the He177 did. The B-29 was never suffering a 1/3rd mission abort rate due to mechanical failures.
The Avro Manchester was pretty dang horrible though, but the Brits allowed Avro to fix it the most expedient way, go to four proven engines. Heinkel wanted to do that with the He177 but the RLM forbade it.
-
Oh, I agree completely...
And I am not trying to be a jerk here, but there are already tons of notoriously unreliable vehicles in the game, are any of those modeled as such?
I think your idea on making the engines achilles heels is a good idea, and I certainly don't think that the max bombload should be anything approaching the theoretical... if not, then the plane should be heavily perked simply for balance reasons... the ME-262 doesn't start suffer engine fires, the 163 doesn't randomly explode, and every other Koenigstiger isn't sitting with a dead engine or stuck in the mud... but they are all perked... I don't think the HE-177 should be different unless concessions are made as you stated above.
On the other hand, I think it SHOULD be what it was... and that is a late war heavy bomber in every sense of the word... just because it spent most of its time on the Eastern Front and out of the limelight doesn't mean it should be a turd.
One of the reasons all those vehicles are perked is that they don't possess the historical weaknesses they actually possessed. Same with the
B-29...no spontaneous engine fires that I've noticed.
-
If the HE-177 was generally fragile.... Sure, make the plane itself kinda fragile.
If you just want to model engine unreliability, give it weak engines.
-
One of the reasons all those vehicles are perked is that they don't possess the historical weaknesses they actually possessed. Same with the
B-29...no spontaneous engine fires that I've noticed.
No, that is not the reason they are perked.
Also, the B-29's engine fires that get brought up as an excuse for the He177 in every He177 thread never approached anything like the He177's rate of failure. I can name numerous units in AH that had far worse reliability than the B-29.
-
Its pretty pointless, both sides are just repeating their reasons over and over.
Would like to hear some reasons why a He-177 should be added instead of the ju-188.
Here are my reasons for the junkers: faster, 3000kg bombload (more than a B17!), still an acceptable defensive arnament, could be used much more on events as it was used widely in the war, would be competitive in the main arena, was (would be) a multirole aircraft, had several variations what means one 3D model could be used on more different aircrafts including the heavy fighter, and, is just a better looking aircraft : )
Also to say He-177 was a complete garbage, just dont make any sense, just like the "cuz the bigger is better" ones. Plz bring up valid reasons why you would or wouldnt like that aircraft.
-
Out of 3.000+ B-29s, 119 were destroyed in the US in accidents.
87 in accidents in theater.
105 sent to 2nd line due accidents, malfunctions and damage.
That is not very far from the 414 actually lost in combat.
Btw, picking a single He-177 early mission as indicative of the performance and reliability of a later model of the aircraft is highly misleading! And also ignores the fact that in the eastern front the plane did quite well, that is until it was sent in suicide, low-level, anti-tank runs.
For what I have read, people seem to be concerned about other aircraft losing its place to a new one... but how many times has this happened in AH before and why should we care?
Oh, and regarding its strength, this crate was designed to and did withstand shallow dives so it structure was quite strong, the engines however should catch fire easily and take away half its power and eventually causing a wing collapse. Just like happened in the B-29.
The Ju-188 is a beauty, sadly it offer little improvement over the Ju-88A4. Its slightly faster and has better guns, but that is pretty much it. The plane was a stop-gap measure until the stillborn Ju-288 could enter service. The He-177 in the other hand brings a whole different dimension capability-wise, its reasonably fast, it has a bomb load second only to the Lancaster and its armament is good, but not as good as that of the US heavies (the 20mm tail gun has very limited firing arcs and the 13mm is not as good as the .50, and lacks a belly turret).
-
You really think it would be feasible to make a structurally heavy plane which was made even dive capable "structurally weak". That's absurd.
Just make it perked.
-C+
-
You really think it would be feasible to make a structurally heavy plane which was made even dive capable "structurally weak". That's absurd.
Yup, one of the reasons it was a failure.
Just make it perked.
-C+
Having to perk something that was terrible in reality would pretty firmly indicate fundamental problems with the game.
-
Having to perk something that was terrible in reality would pretty firmly indicate fundamental problems with the game.
Are we talking about the ME-163B now?
-
Yup, one of the reasons it was a failure.
Having to perk something that was terrible in reality would pretty firmly indicate fundamental problems with the game.
One thing I noticed Hitech does is put it at specifications, Look at the Tiger 2 for example - during the war it was plagued by poor welding, terrible construction - most were sabotaged during construction.
We have a perfect Tiger II with no flaws what so ever, however not all Tiger 2's were "defective". Me-163 and He-177 follow the same suite, even the Panther and Tiger tanks.
The B-29 is a primary allied comparison, early stages its engines were a complete disaster, yet ours flies without any trouble what so ever.
If we started introducing "problems" like engine fires people would simply quit the game, imagine climbing to 25k in B-29s then suddenly your engines caught fire due to over heating?
Or spending 50 perks to watch a Me-163 blow up on the runway without even moving?
Sure its realistic, but this is a video game - we have to balance Arcade with Realism, thus is why we have icons and everything else to improve "arcade quality" game play.
-
Icons are not arcade.
If you've flown WB on RR you know what arcade is more likely to be. AH doesn't do arcade (debates about the new GV system aside).
Because they don't want to add pointless frustrations -- they leave it up to pilot skill to determine victory, not random punitive features -- such planes as were horrid in reality don't really have much of a place here.
The B-29 is being thrown around here as an example, albeit I think not a very good one. Its engines overheated. The 177's caught fire even at normal power. They actually leaked and spewed liquids that ignited. This wasn't a mere overheat. They really were atrocious engines.
IMO given how HTC isn't in the market of adding annoyances for no good reason, I think when we have a WW2 plane that would suddenly become a wonder-plane without those annoyances shouldn't be added to the game. I'm honestly not even sold that the 177 falls under that category, despite all the gushing in this forum over the many years, but it would benefit more than any other plane (me163 included) from the lack of spontaneous mission-ending failures.
-
IMO given how HTC isn't in the market of adding annoyances for no good reason, I think when we have a WW2 plane that would suddenly become a wonder-plane without those annoyances shouldn't be added to the game. I'm honestly not even sold that the 177 falls under that category, despite all the gushing in this forum over the many years, but it would benefit more than any other plane (me163 included) from the lack of spontaneous mission-ending failures.
You aren't describing the He-177-A5, which was by far the most produced model.
All research I can find on this aircraft seems to point to the original series being a disaster, the later series being improved and actually ready for front-line service. That it was subsequently grounded (along with the rest of the Luftwaffe bombers) is not indicative of the performance of the later models.
-
Man, people should really read a bit more before making inaccurate statements.
The B-29s engines had a magnesium crankcase, when the faulty engines overheated caught fire the magnesium would eventually do so too leading to the collapse of the entire wing!
On the other hand, the leakage problems were eradicated on the A-5 and fires became non-existent once ground and air crews were adequately trained. Not to mention that the wing was significantly strengthened which allowed them to confidently undertake shallow dives, something than even the A3s were already doing in January 1944.
In the end the type had a 90% availability rate in some Gruppe, an improvement even from the 80% rate of II/KG40 in early 1944 which operated even A3s with considerable less problems than other Gruppe. As I said before, the machine was green and so were the personnel and logistics as well, and all those factors together made the debut of the He-177 a troublesome one, but those defects were overcome within a year and the machine was certainly far more reliable than some people wish to believe.
You can find the references on Griehl, pp 131 and 151.
JAG