Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Tracerfi on June 11, 2012, 06:11:38 PM
-
We only have 2 from this country C202 and 205 this annoys me
Very Early war plane 1939
http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/2-Airplanes/Axis/2-Italy/01-Fighters/FiatCR.42-Falco/CR.42-Falco.htm
Early War 1942
http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/2-Airplanes/Axis/2-Italy/04-Bombers/SM-84/SM-84bis.htm
another 1
http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/2-Airplanes/Axis/2-Italy/07-Maritime-Planes/CANT-Z506/CANT-Z506.htm
-
yes,we need, the sm-82. combat used by luftwaffe as well as italian airforce....was a bomber and a transport for paratroopers.....and would grant wishes for axis transport,italian aircraft,and axis bomber all in one aircraft. the g-55 fiat and re-2005 would be great fighters...but you know how it is. people would say things like...they wernt made in enough numbers, no impact on the war etc etc...of course this is because THEY dont want them. these same argument can be said for the wirblewind,octwind,ta-152,p-47m,me 163 and brewster(in game model) and yet we have those in game.......awww maybe they are afraid of new non us aircraft? maybe. im not sure
-
We will not get the SM.82 as a troop transport because it would be very much more effective than the C-47A being faster, armed and tougher. We might get the Ju52 as a transport as it gives the choice to be extremely slow and armed or to be slow an unarmed.
The SM.82 might be added as a bomber. A better bomber choice would be the Savoia-Marchetti SM.79-II or Cant Z.1007.
-
we NEED the Fiat G.55, the Piaggo P.108 and the Cant z. 1007 before anything else is added.
-
we NEED the Fiat G.55, the Piaggo P.108 and the Cant z. 1007 before anything else is added.
We don't need the P.108. Only 24 were built.
The two most representative Italian aircraft that could be added would be the C.200 and the SM.79-II.
-
I still want the Re.2005.
-
We don't need the P.108. Only 24 were built.
The two most representative Italian aircraft that could be added would be the C.200 and the SM.79-II.
as far as fighter goes i really recommend the Fiat G.55 Centauro. everytime a early war plane gets added its only flown the first week its out then rots in the virtual hanger.
-
as far as fighter goes i really recommend the Fiat G.55 Centauro. everytime a early war plane gets added its only flown the first week its out then rots in the virtual hanger.
Understandable. Note that I didn't say "We don't need the G.55." :p
-
+1 for the C200 and the SM79
-
Is there any *note* any chance of the Re.2005 being added?
Honestly the most beautiful aircraft of the war, and would even be competetive in the LWMA.
-
Is there any *note* any chance of the Re.2005 being added?
I'd say yes, there is a chance, though the G.55 is probably more likely.
-
Screw more likely, the G.55 can rot.
I want my Saggitario!!!!!
(http://www.finn.it/regia/immagini/reggiane/re2005.jpg)
-
I'd say yes, there is a chance, though the G.55 is probably more likely.
G.55 certainly can be added to Aces high, it served in squadron strength and racked up over 100 kills, primary flown in northern Italy. After being reviewed by the German Luftwaffe they declared it better then the 109g6 in all aspects, why it was never produced by the germans is a wonder.
Re.2005 to my knowledge never flew in squadron strength, I believe only one wing actually flew it in combat, with only 45 produced (far less then that given there were a few prototypes) I would say it most likely filled the gaps for squadrons that got hacked apart late in the war.
-
Well depends on if it had to see service in all one squadron. A squadron's worth saw combat, IIRC, but not all in the same time.
Also HTC stated before that the only real requirement is that it flew in WWII, and that it saw combat.
-
Well depends on if it had to see service in all one squadron. A squadron's worth saw combat, IIRC, but not all in the same time.
Also HTC stated before that the only real requirement is that it flew in WWII, and that it saw combat.
It never seen squadron service, it might of filled one wing, only problem is finding out what squadron actually flew re.2005s if any did, so far I cannot find any photos or evidence of which squad flew it. Wikipedia shows some 40 such built, where this number comes from is beyond me.
What I think is likely, is the factories might of produced 4x - they might of been bombed and never used in combat, which is the case for the japanese in many ways.
Germans did not want to license and build the G.55 or Re.2005, so this leaves the Italian factories which were already being hammered by Allied bombers.
Edited:
Here's some comments across the net:
Hello John
a nice picture, thanks for that.
But IMHO the combat use of 2005 after Sept 43 is just a myth, not the only one floating in the net. IIRC there was only one LW unit using 2005, that was a target unit operating in Northern Italy, we know that 3 of its 2005s were damaged during USAAF bombing raid against its airfield.
Juha
Secondly:
Well several sources say that the ANR 2005s were used for training only. for a series 5, its not a glorious end
-
I know this Italian bomber is old and slow but I wish we had the Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 Tri-Motor. It would be a nice historic plane for special events and if we ever get the Tri-Motor JU.52 the SM.79 may be easy to model.
-
I know this Italian bomber is old and slow but I wish we had the Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 Tri-Motor. It would be a nice historic plane for special events and if we ever get the Tri-Motor JU.52 the SM.79 may be easy to model.
The two are completely unrelated. It is like saying the Lancaster was easier because we had the B-17 or the P-38 was easier because we had the B-26 and C-47. The SM.79-II's top speed of 270mph puts it on par with its contemporary medium bombers such as the Ju88 and faster than the He111 or Wellington. 270 is about 100mph faster than the Ju52.
Personally I would like to see the SM.79-II added much sooner than the Ju52 as the SM.79-II is the larger gap.
-
Well I don't know squat about computer modeling, that is all on HTC to figure out. I just want the SM.79 because it would be cool.
-
Also HTC stated before that the only real requirement is that it flew in WWII, and that it saw combat.
Yay.
Please add it! +1
-
+1 for the Macchi C.200
(http://i1043.photobucket.com/albums/b434/trap78/C200.jpg)
and the CR.72
(http://i1043.photobucket.com/albums/b434/trap78/CR42.jpg)
-
After being reviewed by the German Luftwaffe they declared it better then the 109g6 in all aspects, why it was never produced by the germans is a wonder.
Production man hours took less to produce a Bf 109 than a G.55 by quite a large margin.
ack-ack
-
Production man hours took less to produce a Bf 109 than a G.55 by quite a large margin.
ack-ack
I remember seeing the man hours diagram between the 109 series and Italian Series 4/5 fighters, Between G2-k4 the K I believe if I remember correctly took the least amount of time to build.
-
http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/bww2/sm84/sm84-7.jpg Photo of the SM-84
-
I remember seeing the man hours diagram between the 109 series and Italian Series 4/5 fighters, Between G2-k4 the K I believe if I remember correctly took the least amount of time to build.
I think it was something like 15,000 man hours to build a G.55 opposed to 5,000 hours for a Bf 109.
ack-ack
-
I cant accept it, Akak.
The 109 was produced in large factories, in a production line. The G-55 was built in much lower quantity. You know, it takes less time to assebly a VW Golf than an Alfa...
Mario Bellagambi, italian ace and wing leader stated in 1944 July, about the planes his wing used that time:
"the Macchi (c205) performs well against enemy fighters, the G-55 is a garbage. True though, there are less and less Macchis remaining, while the G-55 is still in production"
In 1944 September, the whole ANR (Italian Air Force) got 109s as fighters.
-
I think it was something like 15,000 man hours to build a G.55 opposed to 5,000 hours for a Bf 109.
ack-ack
Yes I've read similar results,although I think it was closer to twice the hours than 3 times but I could be mistaken.
It was also stated that disruption to assembly was unacceptable at that time.
:salute
-
I think it was something like 15,000 man hours to build a G.55 opposed to 5,000 hours for a Bf 109.
ack-ack
I can't recall which 109, but I believe the k4 took 5,000 hours, G2 and G6 took far more hours, they too were quicker to build then Re.2005/G.55.
-
I would like the to add a G-55 as a bundle with a rework of the C2's
-
I think it was something like 15,000 man hours to build a G.55 opposed to 5,000 hours for a Bf 109.
ack-ack
Is it because the G.55 took 15,000 Italian man hours, while the 109 took 5,000 German man hours?
-
Is it because the G.55 took 15,000 Italian man hours, while the 109 took 5,000 German man hours?
:rofl
:salute
-
+1 for more italian fighters and bombers
-
We will not get the SM.82 as a troop transport because it would be very much more effective than the C-47A being faster, armed and tougher. We might get the Ju52 as a transport as it gives the choice to be extremely slow and armed or to be slow an unarmed.
The SM.82 might be added as a bomber. A better bomber choice would be the Savoia-Marchetti SM.79-II or Cant Z.1007.
Why that make no sense that is why it would be added because it is Better than the C-47 Skytrain
-
Why that make no sense that is why it would be added because it is Better than the C-47 Skytrain
It doesn't create an interesting choice. The Ju52 and C-47 would be an interesting choice. The B-17G or Lancaster is an interesting choice.
When one unit is simply vastly better in all ways than the other the choice isn't there anymore.
-
It doesn't create an interesting choice. The JU52 and C-47 would be an interesting choice. The B-17G or Lancaster is an interesting choice.
When one unit is simply vastly better in all ways than the other the choice isn't there anymore.
The answer is simple have AH limit it to a Armed Transport
-
The answer is simple have AH limit it to a Armed Transport
How is that simple? It leaves you in the same place, no real choice as the SM.82 is simply superior. It is faster, tougher and armed. The choice between the Ju52 and C-47 is interesting because you get the choice of speed or guns, but either way you lose something.
-
How is that simple? It leaves you in the same place, no real choice as the SM.82 is simply superior. It is faster, tougher and armed. The choice between the Ju52 and C-47 is interesting because you get the choice of speed or guns, but either way you lose something.
Ju-52 was also pretty armored as I remember - something to do with the skin of its body it was no way easy to shoot down (Not in the sense of an IL-2 tough).
-
Yeah, courregated skin is generally tougher than smooth skin, though it also causes more drag, IIRC.
-
Ju-52 was also pretty armored as I remember - something to do with the skin of its body it was no way easy to shoot down (Not in the sense of an IL-2 tough).
The Ju-52 also had a lot of empty space for the rounds to pass through.
ack-ack
-
The Ju-52 also had a lot of empty space for the rounds to pass through.
ack-ack
Yeah but we don't have damage modeling like that, I would be in favor of having troops get killed - if a 47/52 were hit by AAA or fighters.