Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: W7LPNRICK on January 21, 2013, 11:40:47 AM
-
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/530828_475447449184464_2118352017_n.jpg (https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/530828_475447449184464_2118352017_n.jpg) Found on Facebook
-
http://tpsrca.com/forums/index.php?topic=138.0 (http://tpsrca.com/forums/index.php?topic=138.0)
http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_albums/timeline/ww2/Henschel%20Hs%20129.htm (http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_albums/timeline/ww2/Henschel%20Hs%20129.htm)
-
oh boy that cockpit was unbelievable narrow but if this is a wish request yes+1
-
Another useless hangar queen. They added the Ju-87G, wonder how many people actually use it :rolleyes:. This thing is worse than the 87G.
-
Another useless hangar queen. They added the Ju-87G, wonder how many people actually use it
Actually quite a few, it quickly superseded the Hurricane IID as the #2 cannon tankbuster. In total 'usage' it came out #62 out of 91 planes in last tour, in front of planes like 38G or Spitfire XiV.
There are not many planes left which would end up in the top 10 when introduced to Aces High...
That being said, I do see greater needs and gaps to fill, but if the gods would throw the Hs 129 at us I would most certartainly fly it, for I have a soft spot for it :old:
-
Another useless hangar queen. :They added the Ju-87G, wonder how many people actually use it :rolleyes:. This thing is worse than the 87G.
Nonsense.
And I love the 87G... It's a one shot killer against panzers, and M4s and T34s are easy meat as well. 4 or 5 gv kills in a sortie is possible. And in the month I've bagged me a p47 and a c205 as well. :aok
-
Nonsense.
And I love the 87G... It's a one shot killer against panzers, and M4s and T34s are easy meat as well. 4 or 5 gv kills in a sortie is possible. And in the month I've bagged me a p47 and a c205 as well. :aok
how much I envy you. When im above icon range cant see them. When I see them I don’t have the time to shoot correctly. In other words no way I can kill a gv in the 87G.
-
I love the ju87g.
Got a 2 kills in it during my first sortie.
First a ki67 at 20,000 feet I ran into while testing it's performance and then a p38 I found spawn bombing when I let down to land.
Sadly, if a kill comes easy the first time I fly a plane, I usually never fly it again.
-
It's a B26 box destroyer par excellence.
I was tank busting in a G2 when the occasional 2k high B26 box suddenly showed up over the town. From 1k I led the box by 50Mil and tapped the trigger once sending out 2 Wolfram-Karbid solid core AP rounds. Two B26 went up in bright orange yellow blossoms of flame. The third was passing into 2k and out of range. Won a HO contest with a tiffy when we both opened at 1200yds.
The Mk101 carried by the He-129 fired a 30mm Wolfram-Karbid solid core AP round that can cut through M4 and early panzer.
-
how much I envy you. When im above icon range cant see them. When I see them I don’t have the time to shoot correctly. In other words no way I can kill a gv in the 87G.
Lining up for guns is no different than with the IL2 or the Hurri... I just hold fire till inside of 200 to make sure the round are more accurately on target... But unless the gv is moving, due to the new icon ranges, I always have to do a flyover ad pick up the GV itself by icon, continue on far enough to allow an immelman, all the while never taking eyes of target.. This should now put the still in view target right on my nose, me in a dive, and on a gun run at 1200-1500 and closing 30 degrees nose down. Plenty of time to zoom in on the gunsight and line up to hit the turret. With the icon ranges, its critical to never take your eyes of that speck on the ground that you want dead.
-
Nonsense.
And I love the 87G... It's a one shot killer against panzers, and M4s and T34s are easy meat as well. 4 or 5 gv kills in a sortie is possible. And in the month I've bagged me a p47 and a c205 as well. :aok
You can do the same in an Il-2 with a bunch more ammo. Ju 87G has nothing over the Il-2 besides better visibility and a better penetrating gun, but what does it matter if the Il-2's 37mm can do the same.
-
You can do the same in an Il-2 with a bunch more ammo. Ju 87G has nothing over the Il-2 besides better visibility and a better penetrating gun, but what does it matter if the Il-2's 37mm can do the same.
You could say similar to a whole lot of planes in Aces High - that there are others that can do at least the same, or even better. Still, there are plenty of people that fly them. My main tank killer is the Hurri D, to which the Il-2 is also vastly superior, not speaking of any plane with plenty of ords like the A-20. In the end, the Ju-87 is not a 'hangar queen', it's seeing quite some use.
Or do you mean that HTC should only add planes that are substantially 'better' for their role than the ones we already have? No other considerations?
-
Never said it has to be "substantially better". Just offer something new. What can the Hs129 offer over the Ju87G , Hurri2D or Il-2?
-
A gun that size will only get us into trouble :old:
-
Never said it has to be "substantially better". Just offer something new. What can the Hs129 offer over the Ju87G , Hurri2D or Il-2?
There was a 110C version with the Mk101 pod under the fuslage. But, for tank busters. You do know we have about run the gamut of purpose built ww2 gun platform tank busters? The Hs129 is the last unless Hitech OK's the IL10 and it only carried 23mm main guns relying on bombs for tanks. It's strength was it's improved speed and manuverability in WW2 terms over the IL2.
-
There was a 110C version with the Mk101 pod under the fuslage. But, for tank busters. You do know we have about run the gamut of purpose built ww2 gun platform tank busters? The Hs129 is the last unless Hitech OK's the IL10 and it only carried 23mm main guns relying on bombs for tanks. It's strength was it's improved speed and manuverability in WW2 terms over the IL2.
Bustr,
you're forgetting the 110g's that carried the 37mm in a central pod! It had 66 rounds available and was loaded much like the 20mm's in the 110C. IMHO it would be a formatable GV killer.
:salute
-
I would love to have this plane in the game :) I have been having tons of fun in the Ju87G2 :banana: :banana:
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/Panzerknacker.jpg)
Standard armament of the Hs-129 B-1 was 2 151/20 and 2 Mg17's.
Standard Bomb load was 4 SC50's
...in addition 2 SC50 <1 on each wing> or 1 SC250 and 2 SC50 or 96 S2's and/or 48 S2 <24 on each wing>.
These were special weapons:
Rack of 4 MG17's
MK101 and Mk103
Several <25> B-3's were Factory equipped with the Bk 7.5 and a few more B-2 were converted to B-3's
I believe 6 had the SG113A mortar pkg
And to answer Titanic's question:
1. It was the only designated <built to be> Tank killer of the war.
2. 2 engines Gnône-Rhône 14M radial engines operated in different directions and were delivered in pairs
3. Several armament options <see above>
:aok
HS129 Panzerjager
Martin Pegg
...And if Pyro should decide he likes it ... I have 4 handbuchs for immediate delivery :pray :salute
-
Never said it has to be "substantially better". Just offer something new. What can the Hs129 offer over the Ju87G , Hurri2D or Il-2?
Run on two engines.
-
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/PanzerknackerFrontView.jpg)
Hs-129 B-2
-
^ "Duck season! Fire!"
-
:aok Very cool!
-
Never said it has to be "substantially better". Just offer something new. What can the Hs129 offer over the Ju87G , Hurri2D or Il-2?
30mm Mk101s (the 410's fast, flat, accurate 30mms) firing AP rounds, which IIRC could punch through something like 80+mm at close range and zero slope.
Also, the 75mm BK 7,5 firing AP rounds if HTC is generous. Imagine it: one-shotting T-34's out as far as you can hit them.
Oh, and more options for internal bombs. Something like 10 50kg bombs in the bomb bay.
-
And once people realize that this thing flies like a brick...it turns into another hangar queen. Yes yes, people will still use it, although I'd rather have something that will be more useful. That doesn't mean late war über monster.
Re.2005
Ki-43
Ki-44
B-17F
Mossie Tsetse
P-61
He-111
Ju-188
Ki-84 Otsu
Wellington
J2M
D4Y2
Meteor (debatable)
Whirlwind
Most of these are not the top tier planes in the same category as the La-7, Spit16, 109K4, 190D, P51D, F4U4, and Tempest are in. If they were added, most would have ENY of 10 or higher. And what's more, they'll actually see some use in the MA because they are competent enough to kill other planes. The Hs129 would be killed the moment another plane looked at it. And really, when have you seen a GV battle without some sort of air cover around it? It happens, but too rare to matter.
But whatever, if HTC decides to add the Hs 129, no big deal. Just don't expect it to be the Il-2 with two engines.
-
With the sudden increase in T34 single shot skeet champions in commander mode, I've had to pull my IL2 convergence in to 450 and dive in at 60-70degrees to avoid becoming T34 76mm wirbel fodder. I'm aslo getting hit by T34 skeet champions in commander mode from 800-1000 leading me with the 76mm when I'm circling.
That's a tad bit of a cheezy gunnery mode similare to a certain ace in the IL2 when he was using F3 to cause cons to over shoot near the deck allowing him to pull up under them point blank. I'm having trouble lately telling the M8 from an ostie sometimes when they hide in the trees covering their icon and tracking planes like an ostie and killing them. Recently I thought I was circling an ostie in the trees who's driver wanted to save ammo and was slow tapping shots very accuratly at planes killing them. Kind of negates rockets since for the most part they were only accurate on tanks at 600 and closer. I've been watching tiffy taken out more often by T34 drivers in commander mode lately than the tiffy killing the T34 when the pilots hold their fire untill 800-600.
So today you can't see the icon untill you feed yourself into a GV's commander mode main cannon skeet shooting range. Tank commanders didn't stick their heads out when fighters were near by because anyone exposed could be straffed including random rounds entering through the hatch. We don't even get to kill the crew member manning the top MG and getting close enough to accuratly machine gun that MG inactive simply places us inside the commander mode skeet shooting range. The numbers of GV drivers in the game who have figured this out is growing. Cheezy, like giving fighters F3 mode.
-
And once people realize that this thing flies like a brick...it turns into another hangar queen. Yes yes, people will still use it, although I'd rather have something that will be more useful. That doesn't mean late war über monster.
Re.2005
Ki-43
Ki-44
B-17F
Mossie Tsetse
P-61
He-111
Ju-188
Ki-84 Otsu
Wellington
J2M
D4Y2
Meteor (debatable)
Whirlwind
Most of these are not the top tier planes in the same category as the La-7, Spit16, 109K4, 190D, P51D, F4U4, and Tempest are in. If they were added, most would have ENY of 10 or higher. And what's more, they'll actually see some use in the MA because they are competent enough to kill other planes. The Hs129 would be killed the moment another plane looked at it. And really, when have you seen a GV battle without some sort of air cover around it? It happens, but too rare to matter.
But whatever, if HTC decides to add the Hs 129, no big deal. Just don't expect it to be the Il-2 with two engines.
I'd much rather have the HS-129 before any of those and before that I would like to see 2 count em 2 country's added to our game
Australia and France :aok
-
^ "Duck season! Fire!"
haha it does ... doesn't
-
With the sudden increase in T34 single shot skeet champions in commander mode, I've had to pull my IL2 convergence in to 450 and dive in at 60-70degrees to avoid becoming T34 76mm wirbel fodder. I'm aslo getting hit by T34 skeet champions in commander mode from 800-1000 leading me with the 76mm when I'm circling.
That's a tad bit of a cheezy gunnery mode similare to a certain ace in the IL2 when he was using F3 to cause cons to over shoot near the deck allowing him to pull up under them point blank. I'm having trouble lately telling the M8 from an ostie sometimes when they hide in the trees covering their icon and tracking planes like an ostie and killing them. Recently I thought I was circling an ostie in the trees who's driver wanted to save ammo and was slow tapping shots very accuratly at planes killing them. Kind of negates rockets since for the most part they were only accurate on tanks at 600 and closer. I've been watching tiffy taken out more often by T34 drivers in commander mode lately than the tiffy killing the T34 when the pilots hold their fire untill 800-600.
So today you can't see the icon untill you feed yourself into a GV's commander mode main cannon skeet shooting range. Tank commanders didn't stick their heads out when fighters were near by because anyone exposed could be straffed including random rounds entering through the hatch. We don't even get to kill the crew member manning the top MG and getting close enough to accuratly machine gun that MG inactive simply places us inside the commander mode skeet shooting range. The numbers of GV drivers in the game who have figured this out is growing. Cheezy, like giving fighters F3 mode.
I down with ya Bustr ...1 of the most BS aspects of the game.. A Tank shooting Plane w/Main gun... complete horsecrap In all my research I have found exactly 1 recorded incidence of this happening in all of WWII. ...but as you say some of the skeet shooters have really taken advantage. Almost as bad as the 109Krutch4 players.
-
Im for the He 129, but I wouldn't hold high hopes for it, and it would be a hangar queen withouth its burdensome AT cannon pods. Primarily though it looks at a glance like it'll have limited range and be grossly underpowered and VERY slow (700hp engines, 253mph top speed @ altitude, clean).
In comparison, our 110C weighs just over 1k pounds more while empty and had DB engines that produced at least 1,085hp each, and a top speed of 348mph.
I suspect the 410 with heavy cannon loadouts and lighter fuel loaduts on the deck is going to be vastly superior in handling and performance than the Hs 129 equiped with a cannon pod.
I would rather ask for more Ju-88s instead of a Hs 129 (not to hijack, but it might be a "fix" for the big-gun craze others have in this thread), including maybe a Ju-88P which did have some heavy cannons (although they were perceived as failures for their roles... same was said of the 410 though, it was perceived overall as a failure FWIW).
Anti-tank and anti-bomber variant with single Bordkanone series 75 mm (2.95 in), 50 mm (2 in), or twin 37 mm (1.46 in) calibre cannon in conformal ventral fuselage gun pod mount, which mandated removal of the Bola gondola under the cockpit section, conversion of A-series bomber. Produced in small series only, they were perceived as a failure for both anti-tank and anti-bomber use.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fhZZ63PRjhQ/TNLS3zYFaOI/AAAAAAAABxU/nPEzDcgT2vM/s1600/rechlin6ju88p.jpg)
(http://base13.glasnet.ru/wol/ju/88-11.gif)
-
He 111 for events
-
For events, I'd rather see the Hs 129 instead of a Ju-88P.
Why? The Ju-88P couldn't kill vehicles as effectively, would probably be about as bad, if not worse for performance, and you can't use it for a Kursk scenario.
-
For events, I'd rather see the Hs 129 instead of a Ju-88P.
Why? The Ju-88P couldn't kill vehicles as effectively, would probably be about as bad, if not worse for performance, and you can't use it for a Kursk scenario.
I believe it could kill them much more effectively than a 20mm or 30mm armed Hs129B-1/2.
...variant with single Bordkanone series 75 mm (2.95 in), 50 mm (2 in), or twin 37 mm (1.46 in) calibre cannon...
As I mentioned above, "as effectively" is debateable, the 410 was equally and ultimatley slated as a failure when all was said and done. It can be debated that the Hs129B-3 with the large cannon pods were also a failure:
In the field they proved deadly weapons, but with only 25 aircraft available they had no effect on the war effort.
Hard do be effective with 25... (but the Ju-88P can fall in this category too, with 40-ish P-1s and 32 P-4s being constructed and fielded in squadron strength to combat units (in addition to enough P-3s being supplied for a staffel). In addition, for the 129 having 25% the crew members and 50% the weight empty/clean of a Ju88 - the 88 flew 60 mph faster and had an additional 1000 miles in range).
Wait a minute.... "proved deadly"^, yet:
The resulting system was able to knock out any tank in the world, but the added weight further hindered the already poor performance of the airplane. The Hs 129 B-3 version was a very poorly handling aircraft.
The He-111 would trump this arguement with the events card, no question.
In events or the MA against tanks, I'd put my money on a Ju88P before a HS 129 B-3.
-
Who will be flying the Hs129 farther than the town or the spawn? Very few fly the IL2 or G2Bk Short Bus any farther. And it will become T34 76mm skeet shooting fodder anyway because the Mk101 AP round works on armor 300m and closer.
I'm starting to see three T34 cover each other when you try to gun them or rocket them. They do pretty good from commander mode skeet shooting those 76mm. I've watched alot of jabo drop too low and get 76mm nailed just befor their bomb cracks the T34. And a few nailed from commander mode befor they could get their bomb(s) away.
Guess busting up GV assults will cycle back to using lancasters to carpet bomb the M16, wirbels, osties and T34 so the IL2 and G2 don't get slaughtered. Then they can focus on the M4 and panzers. Sometimes this game can get pretty weird when Hitech changes one small thing in hopes of making something better for one group. It forces another group to get gamey just to win fights.
Carpet bombing LancB52's. Someone should add an Indochina looking map to make the spawn carpeting more realistic.
-
Hs 129 could carry the Bk 7,5 with armor-piercing.
The Ju-88P would be using HE I think, as it was used in the anti-shipping role.
I mean it would be little more than a German B-25H, albeit with more options.
-
And once people realize that this thing flies like a brick...it turns into another hangar queen. Yes yes, people will still use it, although I'd rather have something that will be more useful. That doesn't mean late war über monster.
Re.2005
Ki-43
Ki-44
B-17F
Mossie Tsetse
P-61
He-111
Ju-188
Ki-84 Otsu
Wellington
J2M
D4Y2
Meteor (debatable)
Whirlwind
Most of these are not the top tier planes in the same category as the La-7, Spit16, 109K4, 190D, P51D, F4U4, and Tempest are in. If they were added, most would have ENY of 10 or higher. And what's more, they'll actually see some use in the MA because they are competent enough to kill other planes. The Hs129 would be killed the moment another plane looked at it. And really, when have you seen a GV battle without some sort of air cover around it? It happens, but too rare to matter.
But whatever, if HTC decides to add the Hs 129, no big deal. Just don't expect it to be the Il-2 with two engines.
I know of no other plane that Luftwaffe pilots were ordered to avoid combat with other than the Yak 3, yet we have virtually every other plane that was ordered to avoid combat with it??? Arguably the best fighter of World War 2 absent from a world war 2 flight sim???
:salute Nishizwa
-
Primarily though it looks at a glance like it'll have limited range and be grossly underpowered
It's basically no more underpowered than Il-2 is. HS129's power loading is 3,57kg/hp compared to Il-2's 3,48kg/hp. Not a big difference.
In comparison, our 110C weighs just over 1k pounds more while empty and had DB engines that produced at least 1,085hp each, and a top speed of 348mph.
110 is a heavy fighter and Hs129 is a ground attack aircraft. It is much more sensible to compare Hs129 to the Il-2.
What can the Hs129 offer over the Ju87G , Hurri2D or Il-2?
Advantages the Hs129 would offer compared to the Il-2 for example:
- Two air cooled engines instead of single liquid cooled one.
- Centerline main weapon (MK103) with 100 rounds. No convergence issues, ie. nice for opening up against flaks from longer ranges. Better accuracy, less ammo wasted.
- 20mm cannons for dealing with softer targets such as LVTs, M18s, M3s and aircraft...no need to waste precious main gun ammo for those.
- Counter rotating props eliminate many of the slipping/nose swaying problems (which are caused by prop slipstream, p-factor, gyroscopic precession) of a single engined aircraft such as the Il-2 and make for a very good gun platform. Also it gives a better low speed aileron authority while power on compared to the Il-2.
-
Who will be flying the Hs129 farther than the town or the spawn? Very few fly the IL2 or G2Bk Short Bus any farther.
Personally: The JU87G2 "short bus" as you put it, should be enabled at GV bases if ya ask me. As should the HS129 and the Boomer if we ever get them.
1. It's made to kill tanks.
2. It has 12 shots.
3. It was used at "Advanced Fields" as "Close support Aircraft" at "Close Support Bases" to the battle front.
4. Who is gonna fly it a sector or more? No one, its not for that, its for shooting GV's!.
5. It makes a great case for a re-arm at GV bases.
6. GV's don't drive all the way to another base! ...they spawn.
AND should have the short icon range as GV's do.
It's an "AERIAL GV" :aok........
I like "Air Camping" in it :aok ....
I don't have to fly far to do so :x :O......
And its a blast :old: :airplane: :airplane:
I just wish there were more opportunities to do so .....on a off note I have been flying the YakT lately and I might even try :noid :noid a um ahhh the HurricaneD :O
Like the smileys?,
:cheers:
I think the Hs-129 would be another fantastic addition to the game. It is literally a "Flying Tank". The only plane specifically designed to hunt tanks.
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/PanzerknackerKillTally.jpg)
Of course...as always... behind the new country additions, the Boomer and the D520 ;)
-
Hs 129 could carry the Bk 7,5 with armor-piercing.
The Ju-88P would be using HE I think, as it was used in the anti-shipping role.
I mean it would be little more than a German B-25H, albeit with more options.
I wouldn't negate the 88P for its job of primarily anti-shipping. The 129 was also negated to "alternative" roles other than what it was primarily designed for, including anti shipping.
The Hs 129 I can find being operated by Schlachtgeschwader 1 predominatley, and it did not think highly of their 129s compared to their favored 109 fighter-bomber varients. The 5th staffel (5/SchlG1 & 6/SchlG1 were the staffels equiped with 129Bs) served in Crimea with the rest of the SchlG 1, then transfered (interesting to me, the ONLY one from SG1 too) to Tunis with 129s (after Tunis they were reformed into SchlG2, a stuka tank busting unit that at the same time as their transfer began reequiping with 190s - a task that was never fully complete before May '45). While primarily tasked with supporting ground units, they played roles in anti-shipping responcibilities with sorties flown over the northern Black Sea (and Mediteranian ala 5/SchlG1).
The 88P was produced in more numbers and served in more units and in greater numbers than the 129. If you're wagering on total number of sorties, tank killing missions, targets destroyed and other statistics with the Ju88P vs Hs129B - the Ju88P will sink the Hs129B in the numbers. As far as I can tell, they even TRIED more missions with the 88P than they even dared consider with the Hs129 - as ineffective (or desperate) the mission concepts were with the aircraft. If that still isn't enough, the Hs129 undoubtedly recieved its big guns, as a slightly modified adaptation, FROM a weapons development program focused around the 88P.
Im not trying to drown out your wish for the 129, just pushing for the practicality of another. The only speific neigh vote that I have against your wish with the Hs 129 is that it will be one of the most underpowered aircraft to grace the AH arenas, before you even strap on a capable weapon and overload it...
It's basically no more underpowered than Il-2 is. HS129's power loading is 3,57kg/hp compared to Il-2's 3,48kg/hp. Not a big difference.
110 is a heavy fighter and Hs129 is a ground attack aircraft. It is much more sensible to compare Hs129 to the Il-2.
Advantages the Hs129 would offer compared to the Il-2 for example:
- Two air cooled engines instead of single liquid cooled one.
- Centerline main weapon (MK103) with 100 rounds. No convergence issues, ie. nice for opening up against flaks from longer ranges. Better accuracy, less ammo wasted.
- 20mm cannons for dealing with softer targets such as LVTs, M18s, M3s and aircraft...no need to waste precious main gun ammo for those.
- Counter rotating props eliminate many of the slipping/nose swaying problems (which are caused by prop slipstream, p-factor, gyroscopic precession) of a single engined aircraft such as the Il-2 and make for a very good gun platform. Also it gives a better low speed aileron authority while power on compared to the Il-2.
Are your powerloading calculations from their lightest armament/clean loadouts for each aircraft? :devil
I would love to crunch some Hs 129 numbers if I had the data on the B-1, B-2 and B-3 each.
I'm not trying to kill the idea, just scratching my head over why (and now)?
-
I wouldn't negate the 88P for its job of primarily anti-shipping. The 129 was also negated to "alternative" roles other than what it was primarily designed for, including anti shipping.
The 88P was produced in more numbers and served in more units and in greater numbers than the 129. If you're wagering on total number of sorties, tank killing missions, targets destroyed and other statistics with the Ju88P vs Hs129B - the Ju88P will sink the Hs129B in the numbers. As far as I can tell, they even TRIED more missions with the 88P than they even dared consider with the Hs129 - as ineffective (or desperate) the mission concepts were with the aircraft. If that still isn't enough, the Hs129 undoubtedly recieved its big guns, as a slightly modified adaptation, FROM a weapons development program focused around the 88P.
BS
The Ju-88P was produced in 4 variants 32 or 33 total units made! All were Conversions!
-1 BK 7.5 cannon...........6 made tested not a produced series sent to Poltava airfield in southern Russia for operational trials.
-2 2 37mm Flak 18 ....delivered to Erprobungskommando 25
-3 2 37mm .......Up armored and Up engined and used as a night attack aircraft.
-4 BK 5 cannon 10 units of 90 ordered
"Just as Ju87s were converted to tank-busters, so a number of Ju88s were to, to form the Ju88P series. In 1942, a Ju88A-4 airframe formed the basis of a prototype and was tested with a 75mm (2.95in) KwK39 cannon mounted in a larger underbelly fairing. A small number were ordered as the Ju88P-1, armed with a 75mm (2.95in) Pak40 cannon and a 7.92mm (0.31in) MG81 forward-firing machinegun for the pilot to aim the cannon. The usual ventral and dorsal machine-guns were carried as well. Other sub-variants with alternative armament were built, including the Ju88P-2 and P-3 (two 37mm BK cannon) and the Ju88P-4 (one 50mm BK5 cannon), with a total of thirty-two of this final P variant being built.
Severe problems during the design and test resulted from the canons, which cause structural cracks in the front nose and the propellers. Therefore the smaller BK3,7 canons were mounted, which were already used at the Ju87-G. Due to the structural additions the P1/P2 became to slow, therefore the stronger Jumo 211J was added to the P3, which finally was delivered to the front troops for test flights. Some of these aircraft were also transferred to fighter units at the West front. But due to the heavy canons these aircraft offered bad flight performances. The tank busting Ju 88P was developed from the Ju 88A-4, the Ju 88P-1 with a 75 mm Pak 40 cannon and the ensuing Ju 88P-2 to Ju 88P-4 with different combinations of heavy anti-tank weapons"
The Ju88 is just another bomber adaptation trying to be a tank buster.
Might as well have this for another ju88 something to spend perks on :rofl :aok
(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/220099d1356913481t-mistel-composite-controls-ju88_mistel.jpg)
Go make your own wish :aok
-
I wouldn't negate the 88P for its job of primarily anti-shipping. The 129 was also negated to "alternative" roles other than what it was primarily designed for, including anti shipping.
The Hs 129 I can find being operated by Schlachtgeschwader 1 predominatley, and it did not think highly of their 129s compared to their favored 109 fighter-bomber varients. The 5th staffel (5/SchlG1 & 6/SchlG1 were the staffels equiped with 129Bs) served in Crimea with the rest of the SchlG 1, then transfered (interesting to me, the ONLY one from SG1 too) to Tunis with 129s (after Tunis they were reformed into SchlG2, a stuka tank busting unit that at the same time as their transfer began reequiping with 190s - a task that was never fully complete before May '45). While primarily tasked with supporting ground units, they played roles in anti-shipping responcibilities with sorties flown over the northern Black Sea (and Mediteranian ala 5/SchlG1).
The 88P was produced in more numbers and served in more units and in greater numbers than the 129. If you're wagering on total number of sorties, tank killing missions, targets destroyed and other statistics with the Ju88P vs Hs129B - the Ju88P will sink the Hs129B in the numbers. As far as I can tell, they even TRIED more missions with the 88P than they even dared consider with the Hs129 - as ineffective (or desperate) the mission concepts were with the aircraft. If that still isn't enough, the Hs129 undoubtedly recieved its big guns, as a slightly modified adaptation, FROM a weapons development program focused around the 88P.
Im not trying to drown out your wish for the 129, just pushing for the practicality of another. The only speific neigh vote that I have against your wish with the Hs 129 is that it will be one of the most underpowered aircraft to grace the AH arenas, before you even strap on a capable weapon and overload it...
Are your powerloading calculations from their lightest armament/clean loadouts for each aircraft? :devil
I would love to crunch some Hs 129 numbers if I had the data on the B-1, B-2 and B-3 each.
I'm not trying to kill the idea, just scratching my head over why (and now)?
All I have to say to that is that we don't use our aircraft in ways that are nessicarily conventional, or tacticaly sound in real life, but result in improved effectivness in the game.
The 190F-8 was intended to be a ground-support aircraft, but in AH it makes one hell of a CV buster. If it had more of its ordnance options, particularly the AP 500kg and 1000kg bombs, it would probably be the best CV buster in the game.
Mossie 16 was a bomber, but it makes a great ground-attack plane if you're willing to risk the perks.
Tigers were assult tanks, but here they're just concrete sitters.
Late up-armored 190's were poor at alt. But in AH, they can still be effective due to lower combat altitudes.
-
Over 40 Ju88A-4s were converte into P-1s, and 30-odd A4s were converted into P-4s. The total number is lost to history likely, unless you'd like to share your resources Magalodon. The definitive number produced alone is over the total for Hs 129Bs. I'm pulling the BS card.
-
Over 40 Ju88A-4s were converte into P-1s, and 30-odd A4s were converted into P-4s. The total number is lost to history likely, unless you'd like to share your resources Magalodon. The definitive number produced alone is over the total for Hs 129Bs. I'm pulling the BS card.
Well Bibalonian
1st of all they were ordered not completed...... and there were 90 -4's ordered and 10 made.
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/PanzerknackerProduction.jpg)
I have already shared 1 of my resources :aok
Thanks for playing :ahand
BTW you should try a few books instead of the wiki
-
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/PanzerknackerMk101WingSC50s.jpg)
-
German wikipedia has Data from the military archive in Freiburg regarding Ju 88P
P-1: 20+18 rebuilt from A-4
P-4: 25 rebuilt from A-4
By march 1944 10 P-4 were delivered, P-1 series was obviously completed earlier
http://www.luftwaffe.no/SIG/RLM/RLMMar44.html
-
It would be a superlative M3 Hunter and wirble disabler.
-
Are your powerloading calculations from their lightest armament/clean loadouts for each aircraft? :devil
The weight data is from AH (il-2 with 37mms/100% fuel) and Martin Pegg's excellent book (Hs129B-3 take of weight (MK103 cannon).
-
The Hs 129 had two French 700hp Gnome-Rhone 14M motors because they were available. The plane was underpowered but still had a good gun and enjoyed success as a tank killer. I am all for new planes like the Hs 129 or new armor like the StuG III or the Hetzer JagdPanzer.
-
German wikipedia has Data from the military archive in Freiburg regarding Ju 88P
P-1: 20+18 rebuilt from A-4
P-4: 25 rebuilt from A-4
By march 1944 10 P-4 were delivered, P-1 series was obviously completed earlier
http://www.luftwaffe.no/SIG/RLM/RLMMar44.html
Not Obviously! Show me any where the -1 were used in combat besides being tested at Poltava . What are there werk numbers?
Your missing the -2 and -3 which came out of those. I have explained it ^above. There were a total of 32-33 Ju88P's -1 thru-4 completed period. :aok
Your luft list fails to show any ju-88p-1 -2 -3 at all.
However it does show 674 Hs-129b2 :aok
Keep Help-in Him,
-
Well Bibalonian
1st of all they were ordered not completed...... and there were 90 -4's ordered and 10 made.
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/PanzerknackerProduction.jpg)
I have already shared 1 of my resources :aok
Thanks for playing :ahand
BTW you should try a few books instead of the wiki
All Ju88Ps were converted from stock A-4s. Danke!!!! :D I love inadvertent help/foot-in-mouthing. (and about that wiki information, see the Ju88 thread in teh wishlist forum that "you made for me".)
Does the Hs-129 thread's persisting residence in the General Forum instead of the Wishlist anything like how all of Lance Armstrong's books now all reside in Fiction rather instead of Non-Fiction? :devil :noid
nyuk nyuk
-
Waaaiiitttt for It!!
Next release:
He111
Yak3
Hs129 would be harder for the T34 commander mode one shot skeet shooters to hit. Il2 and Ju87G2 guns become effective at the same range that a commander mode one shot kill becomes 75% or better probability. Especially the more passes you have to make to account for Internet Lag. So you are flying yourself right down their barrel.
The guns approach and firing distance is historicly accurat. Commander mode one shot skeet shooting is Star Wars gey as heck for xBox kiddies. This game is in general so well balanced for accuracy versus play, then this MechWar garbage. Is Aces High about to be ported to xBox or something and needs an easy mode tool for the grade schoolers to keep their parents happy about $14.95 a month?
-
Waaaiiitttt for It!!
Next release:
He111
Yak3
Hs129 would be harder for the T34 commander mode one shot skeet shooters to hit. Il2 and Ju87G2 guns become effective at the same range that a commander mode one shot kill becomes 75% or better probability. Especially the more passes you have to make to account for Internet Lag. So you are flying yourself right down their barrel.
The guns approach and firing distance is historicly accurat. Commander mode one shot skeet shooting is Star Wars gey as heck for xBox kiddies. This game is in general so well balanced for accuracy versus play, then this MechWar garbage. Is Aces High about to be ported to xBox or something and needs an easy mode tool for the grade schoolers to keep their parents happy about $14.95 a month?
If you don't want to get shot down by a tank, don't fly straight into its main gun. Despite what you and FlyinFool think, it has been shown through posting of official accounts that tanks did fire at low level attacking planes with their main gun and at least in one case, was successful in bringing down a plane.
Please try and keep your response to less than 500 words, I tend to fall asleep reading your long verbose posts.
ack-ack
-
Thats OK Ack Ack, recent MRI testing is finding college students brains go on snooze after a single paragraph unless the topic is something that really turns on their intrest in puerile ways. The testing is a result of ongoing issues with the inablilty for many to communicate in more than a paragraph or make any two paragraphs in the same paper effectively relate to each other.
I always thought you were a bit older than that.
-
He probably is; you're just boring, and a tad pedantic, in this particular case without any real knowledge of the subject it would seem.
-
If you don't want to get shot down by a tank, don't fly straight into its main gun. Despite what you and FlyinFool think, it has been shown through posting of official accounts that tanks did fire at low level attacking planes with their main gun and at least in one case, was successful in bringing down a plane.
Please try and keep your response to less than 500 words, I tend to fall asleep reading your long verbose posts.
ack-ack
Still FlyinHigh up there Ack?
1 They can shoot at me all day long, I don't care... but YOU can only provide 1 instance ONE in all off ww2 and you say its good? :rofl
You sound like the fool to me. :aok
It just didn't happen and shouldn't in the game.
-
How can you remove it? If the projectile intersects the aircraft it is a hit, unless you want to do a gamey solution such as making aircraft immune to tank shells.
-
How can you remove it? If the projectile intersects the aircraft it is a hit, unless you want to do a gamey solution such as making aircraft immune to tank shells.
Remove the ability to fire in commander mode.
-
Remove the ability to fire in commander mode.
35 tank to air kills this tour may qualify me to speak on this, though I doubt all were main gun shots, (some pintle gun, some proxies) I dare say a majority of them were main gun shots.......... all made from the gunner's position, as they flew right into my barrel, with an occasional lucky lead shot. :aok :ahand
:salute Nishizwa
-
I don't have a problem with this kind of gameplay either (I don't bother with GVs for the most part, that includes bombing them). Just a reply to Karnak's question. Unrealistic? Yea. But so is a whole lot of other stuff in AH. Remember, it's not a flight sim, it's a game with realistic modeling. There is a difference.
-
Remove the ability to fire in commander mode.
^^^this^^^
-
35 tank to air kills this tour may qualify me to speak on this,
Ok, it qualifies you to speak on it but I didn't see you making a single argument/point regarding the issue? :headscratch: Was your only reason for posting that you've scored 35 kills in a tank this tour?
-
- Centerline main weapon (MK103) with 100 rounds.
I must correct myself here...
In the operating instructions of the MK103 for the Hs129 it says the following:
Einlegen des Vollgurtes mit 80 Schuß nach Beladeschema am Vollgurtkasten.
My German is very very poor but as I understand it, it basically says: "Place ammunition belt with 80 rounds into the ammunition container as detailed in the diagram."
So in my understanding, 80 rounds instead of 100. The 100 rounds probably came from reading MK103-document regarding Me410. It'd be nice if someone with better handle on German would comment if I got the translation anywhere near correct.
-
It'd be nice if someone with better handle on German would comment if I got the translation anywhere near correct.
You did.
-
35 tank to air kills this tour may qualify me to speak on this, though I doubt all were main gun shots, (some pintle gun, some proxies) I dare say a majority of them were main gun shots.......... all made from the gunner's position, as they flew right into my barrel, with an occasional lucky lead shot. :aok :ahand
:salute Nishizwa
yep I get mine in the gun sight also.
-
making aircraft immune to tank shells.
This would be allot closer to real life with only 1 instance recorded then the Gamey Tank Cupola Commander hitting a plane with's its main gun every time.
-
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/PanzerknackerBk37_zpsd1f74c1a.jpg)
-
Ok, it qualifies you to speak on it but I didn't see you making a single argument/point regarding the issue? :headscratch: Was your only reason for posting that you've scored 35 kills in a tank this tour?
it wasn't a very long post, perhaps if you had read all of it including what I had quoted, you would've deduced that I was addressing the chorus of folks who have somewhat hijacked this thread erroneously thinking that main gun tank to air kills are made from the commander's position.
I dare say a majority of them were main gun shots.......... all made from the gunner's position, as they flew right into my barrel, with an occasional lucky lead shot
As far as the OP, I think there are several other planes that should be added to the AH hanger before another scarcely used tank buster, namely arguably the best fighter of the war the Yak 3.
:salute Nishizwa
-
it wasn't a very long post, perhaps if you had read all of it including what I had quoted, you would've deduced that I was addressing the chorus of folks who have somewhat hijacked this thread erroneously thinking that main gun tank to air kills are made from the commander's position. As far as the OP, I think there are several other planes that should be added to the AH hanger before another scarcely used tank buster, namely arguably the best fighter of the war the Yak 3.
:salute Nishizwa
+1
(Every time I have main-gunned a plane it's been from the gun-site...)
And totally He-177 before Hs 129.
-
+1 H129
-
Ive hit drones offline with the T34 at 1.5k by practicing it. You start off in commander mode tracking the con. You jump to gunner mode for the gunsight and pull lead and elevation. The offline target's azmuth setting helps with learning the elevation aspect. I've been wing shot increasingly by tanks at 1000-1200 since commander mode was introduced.
Same principle when being attacked by a jabo or IL2\G2 on final attack run. For several seconds the attacking plane has to fly straight down your gun that you alined from commander mode since your gun is slaved horizontaly to changing your PoV with your joystick. You cannot crack certain tanks with the NS-37 or BK3.7 effectively outside of 400 as a constant rule in the game. Even rockets have similare short range issues for accuracy. I'm observing an increasing number of rocket attackers shot by tank main guns during their last 1-2seconds of lineup.
The commander hanging his head out of the hatch with attacking planes should be a straffing target and not a god mode gun alignment toggel tool. F3 and IL2's furballing comes back to mind. The same for the crewman operating the top MG while being straffed by an attacking fighter. There would have been no purpose to creating the tools called Ju87G2 and Hs129 to crack tanks if ww2 tanks were able to defend themselves as efectively then with their main gun as an antiair defence as they can now in Aces High.
-
Remove the ability to fire in commander mode.
Add a delay perhaps. The TC view is supposed to represent the commander directing the crew.
-
These are the Werk Nummer's for the Hs-129
Werk Nummers are the same as a serial number or a VIN number <for cars> in the US ...for German Planes. They only get a werk nummer if they are produced. With out a werk nummer its hard to prove any German plane exists.
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/PanzerknackerWerkNummer2_zpsb99f3c48.jpg)
:salute
-
Remove the ability to fire in commander mode.
Every main gun plane kill I have made in AH has been made from the gun sight, not from the commander's position. On most of such kills I haven't even needed to use the commander's position to get the turret facing the right way as the aircraft has obligingly flown straight at my gun.
You can't remove a problem that is not just caused by tank modeling by changing the way the tanks are modeled. The frequency of aircraft attacking tanks from very low altitudes also plays a significant role in how commonly aircraft are downed by the main gun of a tank in AH.
-
Curiosity here then: What prevented RL tank crews to kill planes with the main gun like we do? I would guess the delay between commands given and/or the fact that the crew never saw the planes in the first place because they're too busy inside.
-
Curiosity here then: What prevented RL tank crews to kill planes with the main gun like we do? I would guess the delay between commands given and/or the fact that the crew never saw the planes in the first place because they're too busy inside.
FWIW, I have seen an account by an M1 tank commander who said that they are now trained to use the main tube to shoot at aircraft. I imagine this is more effective against helicopters than MiGs, but I thought it was interesting.
Oldman
-
it wasn't a very long post, perhaps if you had read all of it including what I had quoted, you would've deduced that I was addressing the chorus of folks who have somewhat hijacked this thread erroneously thinking that main gun tank to air kills are made from the commander's position.
Heh, ok. I thought the fact that the shooting is done from the gunsight view to be given since unless you have a piece of post-it in the middle of the screen, there's no real gun sight in the commander position.
As far as the OP, I think there are several other planes that should be added to the AH hanger before another scarcely used tank buster, namely arguably the best fighter of the war the Yak 3.
There indeed are several planes that should be added before Hs129, but as far as Soviet planeset goes Yak-3 isn't one of them.
-
Agreed, yak-3 is not a priority when we have the Yak 9. Like the difference between the G14 and the K4, only less pronounced; one is slower but a bit better handling, while the other is faster.
-
The commander hanging his head out of the hatch with attacking planes should be a straffing target and not a god mode gun alignment toggel tool. The same for the crewman operating the top MG while being straffed by an attacking fighter.
AMEN.
If I can be pilot wounded or insta-killed while in an airplane from a mg or cannon round to the pilot, the same should stand for the machine gunner or TC position on a GV.... if you're in TC position while being strafed by aircraft and take hits to that area of the GV, your TC position should be dead at very least.
and +100 for at min a 3 second delay from the command to fire while operating from the TC position.
I've killed a few aircraft with the main gun on my tank, not as many as some, but I've done it. And it has always been from the main gun sight, not the TC position. But in every single case, I acquired the target, tracked him, and used the TC position to line the gun up on him when he began his attack run, then jumped to the gun to put him in the sight. Then he went BOOM.
Would taking away the ability to fire from TC position change that? No.
But it sure as heck would keep me out of the commander position as much when aircraft are overhead attacking. Your soft melon exposed above your tank, available as a juicy target to a strafing aircraft, is not safe. And that's a heck of a lot more like the real danger faced by an exposed tank crewman than this magical invinceable bulletproof Tank Commander position we have now in Aces High GV's.
-
+1
Although slow, the 129 would be fun; a stable tank sniping platform.
-
It looks so damned functional! I am really intregued by the look of this plane. all those forward facind fuselage cannons are menacing. Reading the stats it looks like target, and the rear views look like they'de be awful, but I have to say I lik eit anyway! :aok
-
Agreed, yak-3 is not a priority when we have the Yak 9. Like the difference between the G14 and the K4, only less pronounced; one is slower but a bit better handling, while the other is faster.
We don't have a Yak-9. We have a 10 year old piece of crap that vaguely resembles a Yak. If there was a vote I'd vote for updating the remaining AH1 models before adding any new aircraft/vehicles. That planes like the Yak and Bf110 are still in their 1990's livery is a travesty.
-
Performance wise, we have a Yak 9. I agree with the visual models. No more polygons.
-
Agreed, yak-3 is not a priority when we have the Yak 9. Like the difference between the G14 and the K4, only less pronounced; one is slower but a bit better handling, while the other is faster.
a post of mine earlier in this thread which I think in part addresses what you have to say:
I know of no other plane that Luftwaffe pilots were ordered to avoid combat with other than the Yak 3, yet we have virtually every other plane that was ordered to avoid combat with it??? Arguably the best fighter of World War 2 absent from a world war 2 flight sim???
:salute Nishizwa
The Yak 3 that we had in Fighter Ace was in the opinion of this 15 + year flight sim addict.... the perfect balance of speed and turning ability. I don't get anything closely resembling that feeling in the Yak 9.
:salute Nishizwa
-
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/PanzerknackerSkins_zps87e5f7d2.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/PanzerknackerSkins2_zps0705e07b.jpg)
-
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/PanzerknackerLoadout_zpseec55569.jpg)
-
Nice pics. Thanks Mega.
~S~
-
Nice pics. Thanks Mega.
~S~
Anytime,
This would be a great plane in the game and the only true dedicated plane built as a tank killer.
-
I confess I've a soft spot for this bird, would love to see it. Just because.
-
It would be fun but only if fitted with the 75mm gun and 16 rounds:
(http://www.germanaircraftwwii.com/img/upload/hghgchgcgh.jpg)
Problem is only 23 B-3s built.
Otherwise just slap a 37mm with 60 rounds on the Bf-110...
-
+1
After the Ki-43 and HE-111 of course.
-
If I can be pilot wounded or insta-killed while in an airplane from a mg or cannon round to the pilot, the same should stand for the machine gunner or TC position on a GV.... if you're in TC position while being strafed by aircraft and take hits to that area of the GV, your TC position should be dead at very least.
[...snip...]
But it sure as heck would keep me out of the commander position as much when aircraft are overhead attacking. Your soft melon exposed above your tank, available as a juicy target to a strafing aircraft, is not safe. And that's a heck of a lot more like the real danger faced by an exposed tank crewman than this magical invinceable bulletproof Tank Commander position we have now in Aces High GV's.
Just thinking about realism a bit when reading your post. In transit, tank commanders would often ride with the hatch open and their head sticking out, for the improved visibility. In combat, that both a) makes the commander vulnerable to small arms and other fire and b) creates a manhole-sized gap in the tanks armor. I'll be honest, I only started gv-ing this tour, and infrequently relative to my flying, but would it not be more realistic/less gamey if there was not only a delay to fire from the TC position, but also a risk of your commander getting killed AND an increased likelihood that your tank would be destroyed from above due to the open hatch?
Otherwise, just give tanks F3 mode, disable TC, and call it a day.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqTleVTB-_g
Snug fitting cockpit...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaBh-whYStI
What it would look like in-game...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czLxs_YKrT8
-
I love the ju87g.
Got a 2 kills in it during my first sortie.
First a ki67 at 20,000 feet I ran into while testing it's performance and then a p38 I found spawn bombing when I let down to land.
Sadly, if a kill comes easy the first time I fly a plane, I usually never fly it again.
so what planes do you not fly?