Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: shoresroad on February 08, 2013, 08:06:13 PM
-
I'm new to AH and one of my favorite parts of the game are the bombers.
I would really like to see the He 111 and the Do 17 added to the game. I think they are similar in performance, load, etc to the Ju 88, but sure would be fun to fly them and shoot them down! They are so much a visual part of WWII.
Great game!
Thanks :cool:
-
There is only one thing I'm gonna say, +1 for them both! :x
-
I'm new to AH and one of my favorite parts of the game are the bombers.
I would really like to see the He 111 and the Do 17 added to the game. I think they are similar in performance, load, etc to the Ju 88, but sure would be fun to fly them and shoot them down! They are so much a visual part of WWII.
Great game!
Thanks :cool:
He 111 is an old request~ it would be really cool for all the Battle of Britain and Barbarossa events +1
-
He111, sure, but the Do17Z should be way down the list of aircraft to be added. It was already being phased out by the time of the Battle of Britain and Barbarossa was its swan song. Because we have the Ju88A-4 even the He111 should be below things like the Do217, Il-4, Ju188, Pe-2, SM.79-II and Tu-2 (pick two Russian, one German and one Italian from that list) as the Ju88A-4 is, more or less, an adequate stand in for the He111.
-
Do 17 unnecessary.
He 111 +32546843513564
-
He111, sure, but the Do17Z should be way down the list of aircraft to be added. It was already being phased out by the time of the Battle of Britain and Barbarossa was its swan song. Because we have the Ju88A-4 even the He111 should be below things like the Do217, Il-4, Ju188, Pe-2, SM.79-II and Tu-2 (pick two Russian, one German and one Italian from that list) as the Ju88A-4 is, more or less, an adequate stand in for the He111.
Russian: Il-4 Tu-2
German: Do-217
Italian: You only listed one. :lol What about the CANT Z.1007 Alcione?
-
Italian: You only listed one. :lol What about the CANT Z.1007 Alcione?
Thought about listing it, but the SM.79-II is so much more iconic that it is really the only choice for the first Italian bomber to be added.
-
He111, sure, but the Do17Z should be way down the list of aircraft to be added. It was already being phased out by the time of the Battle of Britain and Barbarossa was its swan song. Because we have the Ju88A-4 even the He111 should be below things like the Do217, Il-4, Ju188, Pe-2, SM.79-II and Tu-2 (pick two Russian, one German and one Italian from that list) as the Ju88A-4 is, more or less, an adequate stand in for the He111.
Poppycock!
The Ju88A-4 is the post-BOB variant. It has longer wings for more lift, better lift loading, better defensive firepower, adn more horsepower (meaning better top speed and better climb) than the Ju-88A-1 which saw service in the BOB.
Further, the Ju88 was the NEWER of the two bombers serving in the BOB, and the He111 was far more numerous, and far more representative.
EDIT: Put it this way: Hurricanes can't catch the Ju88 we have whenever we run BOB scenarios. Spits can barely, if they don't have to jink more than 10 degrees at a time to evade escorts. If at any time you are behind our in-game Ju88A-4 in a BOB scenario you're screwed. countless FSOs, scenarios, and even AvA (back when it was CT) have proven this time and again. We need the slower, lesser defended planes. Otherwise it's a mockery of the real BOB aircraft whenever we run that setup.
-
The He111 makes the most sense. Right behind that the IL-4 or Tu-2 gets the nod. Then... the Wellington. :aok
-
But the Do 17 looks cool. That's gotta count for something :cool:
-
But the Do 17 looks cool. That's gotta count for something :cool:
Oh it does. :) But I have to side with Karnak. Go with the 217 if you want the Dornier. You get the nice look of a Dornier, but with an added bonus of having a better chance in the MA. :aok
The questions in regards to the He-111 would be; Would we get 2 variants of her (one for BoB and another that would stand somewhat of a chance in the MA)? If not, then which variant would cover a good chuck? H-6 maybe? But probably the H-4? :headscratch:
-
Poppycock!
The Ju88A-4 is the post-BOB variant. It has longer wings for more lift, better lift loading, better defensive firepower, adn more horsepower (meaning better top speed and better climb) than the Ju-88A-1 which saw service in the BOB.
Further, the Ju88 was the NEWER of the two bombers serving in the BOB, and the He111 was far more numerous, and far more representative.
EDIT: Put it this way: Hurricanes can't catch the Ju88 we have whenever we run BOB scenarios. Spits can barely, if they don't have to jink more than 10 degrees at a time to evade escorts. If at any time you are behind our in-game Ju88A-4 in a BOB scenario you're screwed. countless FSOs, scenarios, and even AvA (back when it was CT) have proven this time and again. We need the slower, lesser defended planes. Otherwise it's a mockery of the real BOB aircraft whenever we run that setup.
The Ju88A-4 is a whopping 10mph faster than the He111 will be in AH. It makes little difference as long as bombers all fly at 100% power 100% of the time. Armamentwise it is scarcely better, only having one additional gun in the ventral position. Lift loading doesn't really matter, more powerful engines only produce a top speed of about 10mph faster.
In short, you are wildly exaggerating the qualitative difference between the Ju88A-4 and, say, the He111H-6. We don't even have an approximate substitution for the Il-4, Pe-2, Tu-2, Do217, Ju188 or SM.79-II.
The He111 brings nothing to AH other than a new graphic. Hyperventilating over small differences between the He111 and the Ju88A-4 is no different than demanding the Halifax be added because it only carried 13,500lbs and had a single .303 in the nose and a quad .303 in the tail compared to our Lancaster III's 14,000lbs, two .303s in the nose and two .50s in the tail.
All that aside, if the He111 proved to be that much slower in AH all that would happen is that it wouldn't get used in BoB settings as the players would simply use the Ju88A-4s. Obviously this is only in reference to free for all arenas. Organized events can force players into unpopular aircraft.
-
Separating the A-1 from the A-4:
Armament on the Ju-88A-1 was entirely of MG15 in makeup, with 3 or 4 installed. There was only the one in the ventral bay. The Ju88A-4 carried 3x MG81 guns and a MG81 Z "twin" in the ventral gondola. The MG15 fired only at a peak of 1000 rounds per minute, but the MG81 fired upwards of 1500 rounds per minute. The MG81Z fired 3000 rounds per minute! Some sources say as much as 3200 rounds per minute. Not pertinent to AH just yet, MG15s were limited to 75-rd drum magazines, whereas MG81s were belt-fed in continuous ammo belts.
The A-1 had a max bombload of 2500kg, internal or external. It didn't have the wheel struts to take the heavier loads of the A-4 variant. I believe the A-1 only had 1 inboard ETC250 bombrack under each wing, where the A-4 has 2 under each. The A-1 had many problems with bombload restrictions due to the ranges it needed to fly in the BOB. It often had small bombloads of 1000kg or 500kg so that it could use half of the bombbay storage for an extra fuel tank. Much like our B-17 it COULD carry heavier loads, but only at much shorter ranges. Maximum bomb load limited its range to 700 miles or so, which was barely more than the spitfires and bf109Es of the time. The A-4 could carry more fuel and more bombload, making it an overall more effective bomber.
Part of this was due to the more powerful engines, each about 200hp stronger (400 total) than the A-1's engines. This allowed for better armor plating in the bombers, better fuel loads, better bomb loads, and other general performance and handling benefits. However, these engines weren't available in any real quantities until early 1941 (after the BOB's general time frame). This extra horsepower alone allowed an increase in the gross weight of 3,700 lbs, and a top speed increase across the board of 15mph. This boost in speed came along with an increase in bombload, AND armor plates fitted on the sides of the cockpit and the ventral gondola, which the A-1 lacked.
I should remind you that our hurr1 and our ju88a4 top speeds differ only by 20mph as it is. YES, it is a problem that AH doesn't limit bombers' speeds/engine settings a bit more, but going from the ju88a4 we have to a ju88a1 from the proper era would almost DOUBLE the performance gap of our pursuing hurricanes. The top speed of the A-1 when it was EMPTY was 280mph. Our A-4 does 290 WITH an internal bombload. Cruising speed was about 220mph (on the A-1), though that won't mean much for the Aces High crowd.
The A-1 had fabric covered ailerons of a free-floating type for less effective control surfaces and worse maneuverability. It had an unbalanced rudder as well, which was redesigned to have a balanced top in the A-4. That reduces forces required to achieve certain rudder positions and generally makes a control surface more responsive. The A-4, along with its extended wings, redesigned the ailerons to be metal covered and of a more modern design (similar to what you might think a WW2 plane had). The A-1 handling was rather unsatisfactory to most pilots, and when the A-4 came around they marvelled at how light and nimble the controls were. The A-4 had a wingspan of 65 feet 7.5 inches, which was a full 7 feet more than the A-1 with 58 feet 6 inches. The combination of extra wing area, redesigned control surfaces, much more power, altogether changed the airframe from a poor one to a great one. It wasn't until the A-4 that thoughts of making this airframe into a heavy fighter or night fighter began. The A-1 was far worse in most aspects of maneuvering.
An example of the aileron differences:
(http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/random/ju88a1_wing.jpg)
Another aspect is that the A-1 was much more fragile. It had to be very careful with weight loadings before takeoffs. It had to be balanced/loaded perfectly. More so than most planes, even other German ones. It could NOT dive unless it was done very carefully and specifically. It structurally wasn't as capable (G forces and whatnot) as the A-4 was. Along with the lack of armor plates around the crew compartment, this means that IF we had a Ju88A-1 in our BOB scenarios, when a hurricane caught up to it and shot at it, it would go down in flames (or in pieces) much more quickly.
The Ju88A-1 was undergoing inprovements during the BOB and these were being incorporated into the A-5 and A-4 variants. Whereas a few planes at the Ju88A-4 standard were serving during the end of the BOB they were field modifications or depot-level conversions most likely. The Ju88A-4s combat debut was really the invasion of Soviet Russia in 1941. The A-4 (and the subvariants that were almost identical to the A-4 but with specific differences like life rafts or desert gear) was the most-produced Ju88 variant in the war.... It just isn't representative of the Battle of Britain or anything much before June 1941.
It is NOT just a claim that it was slower. Though, that is a big part of it. It was almost an entirely different plane. One might as well say "the 109E is slower than the 109F" and leave it at that. They are worlds apart in overal capability and performance, as well as in exterior shape. Their payloads, ranges, and weapons are different. Their roll rates, climb rates, dive rates are all different.
And THAT, my dear friends, is why the Ju88A-1 would be a major benefit to our BOB scenarios/setups, as compared to the Ju88A-4 we currently have. Thank you for reading.
-
Oh it does. :) But I have to side with Karnak. Go with the 217 if you want the Dornier. You get the nice look of a Dornier, but with an added bonus of having a better chance in the MA. :aok
+1...The Do 217 would be a better idea yet :pray
The questions in regards to the He-111 would be; Would we get 2 variants of her (one for BoB and another that would stand somewhat of a chance in the MA)? If not, then which variant would cover a good chunk? H-6 maybe? But probably the H-4? :headscratch:
The He-111 is just so much a part of WWII Germany it would be a great add also in one form or another. Probably the version most survivable in the MA would be best.
-
The He-111 is just so much a part of WWII Germany it would be a great add also in one form or another. Probably the version most survivable in the MA would be best.
From a poor source (wiki), this is for the H-6:
up to 7 × 7.92 mm MG 15 or MG 81 machine guns, (2 in the nose, 1 in the dorsal, 2 in the side, 2 in the ventral) some of them replaced or augmented by
1 × 20 mm MG FF cannon (central nose mount or forward ventral position)
1 × 13 mm MG 131 machine gun (mounted dorsal and/or ventral rear positions)
If we are going to get one that seems to cover a decent gap, the H-6 seems to do well, with the ability to swap out some of the defensive guns for the MA. It can be used in EW events, but would have the option for the heavier guns for the MA. Much more information required however. :headscratch:
-
If the He111 is added it should be the version used in the Battle of Britain. A later one with better guns will just be yet more mockery of that setting and still be completely helpless in the LWA.
-
If the He111 is added it should be the version used in the Battle of Britain. A later one with better guns will just be yet more mockery of that setting and still be completely helpless in the LWA.
I hope HTC allows for a choice, meaning put in the H-6 but then allow for multiple gun packages to be chosen. That way, for the scenarios the EW version can be represented at least in terms of defensive armament. I say this in hopes the MW engines are used, the MW bomb loads are used, and yet not abandon the EW roots of the He111 in the BoB. The MW versions offer a tad bit more speed, more ordnance options, and marginally better defensive guns.
-
I hope HTC allows for a choice, meaning put in the H-6 but then allow for multiple gun packages to be chosen. That way, for the scenarios the EW version can be represented at least in terms of defensive armament. I say this in hopes the MW engines are used, the MW bomb loads are used, and yet not abandon the EW roots of the He111 in the BoB. The MW versions offer a tad bit more speed, more ordnance options, and marginally better defensive guns.
All of which does nothing to help it in MWA and LWA yet makes a mockery of BoB settings. I'd rather they didn't waste time on the He111 if they give it mid-war engines and armor. If they are going to do a mid-war German bomber, make it a Ju188A-1, at least that one has some fighting chances.
-
There's no reason to mix EW weapons with MW/LW performance. Just add a BOB-specific variant, and since it will be 99% identical graphically add another for general MA usage.
-
If you want a bomber for historical scenarios get a He-111, if you want one for the MA get its replacement, the He-177.
-
If you want a bomber for historical scenarios get a He-111, if you want one for the MA get its replacement, the He-177.
The He177 never replaced anything.
-
Quite right. It really didn't do much actual bombing, either (outside of night bombing Soviet targets in conditions as safe as possible, flying higher than any opposing fighters, avoiding conflict at all costs, and STILL losing a high number of planes to engine problems).
-
The He177 never replaced anything.
So it wasnt intended to replace the He-111? Rubish.
The only reason the He-111 was kept in production was due to the problems Daimler Benz, Heinkel and the Luftwaffe had with the aircraft which delayed its deployment in force, by the time the He-177 was finally ready all bomber production was cancelled so the He-177 did not replace the 111 in the porduction line, which does not mean it was not its intended replacement.
-
+1 need the He111 I would love to see it added.
-
Quite right. It really didn't do much actual bombing, either (outside of night bombing Soviet targets in conditions as safe as possible, flying higher than any opposing fighters, avoiding conflict at all costs, and STILL losing a high number of planes to engine problems).
Please quote the numbers of aircraft lost to engine trouble in the eastern front that were not due to human error, in the meantime, I will mention that in 1944 several Gruppe had 80 and even 90% serviceability rates for their fleets and had eradicated the overheating problems.
I can quote you the pages from Griehl and others, including the Gruppe that reported such readiness, can you do the same?
Just a token:
"During these operations, von Riesen's crews had little trouble from overheating engines. By now the various modifications had greatly reduced the possibility of this happening. Furthermore the root cause of so many of the fires –over-rough use of the throttles and holding high power settings for too long—was now well known: the KG I pilots had been advised of the danger and avoided it. When engine fires did occur, it was usually the result of engine mishandling by inexperienced pilots."
From Price's, pp 285.
-
So it wasnt intended to replace the He-111? Rubish.
The only reason the He-111 was kept in production was due to the problems Daimler Benz, Heinkel and the Luftwaffe had with the aircraft which delayed its deployment in force, by the time the He-177 was finally ready all bomber production was cancelled so the He-177 did not replace the 111 in the porduction line, which does not mean it was not its intended replacement.
Bullpoop. The He177 was designed in 1936 and mocked up in 1937 originally for the "Bomber A" requirement. In Nov 1937 it was given its RLM type number 8-177. Prototypes flew in 1939, when the Do17 was being replaced by the He-111.
You want to know what was to replace the He-111, though not explicitly designed to? The Ju-88. And it did, for the most part. The Ju-188, 288, and 388, were being pursued as the primary successors to all Luftwaffe bombing (with minor exceptions in the jet family, grossly mismanaged by Hitler).
The He177 wasn't designed or intended to "replace" anything.
However, in mid 1944, even at the end, the loss rates due to engine problems were still quite present.
Quick wiki copy, but you can find it in several books as well:
"As the war progressed, He 177 operations became increasingly desultory. Fuel and personnel shortages presented difficulties, and He 177s were sitting on airfields all over Europe awaiting new engines or engine related modifications. During Operation Steinbock, of the 14 He 177 sent out, one suffered a burst tire, 8 returned with overheating or burning engines and of the 4 that reached London one was lost to night fighters. These aircraft were brand new [...]"
That's only 13, though. What wiki doesn't say is another turned back before it even left French airspace, due to mechanical difficulties!
8 out of 14? That's over 50% engine loss rates in one mission alone! In Jan-May 1944! With the "fixed" problems! Those are "new" craft in 1944, that means A-5s. Just because they weren't bursting into flames ALL the time doesn't mean they weren't bursting into piles of scrap metal. They had a very complicated gearbox mechanism and designs like this (side by side engines) on any side during the war had a high failure rate.
Gixxer comments he has both the J Richard Smith & Eddit J Creeks book and the Manfred Griehl & Joachim Dressel book and both seem to agree that even after the "cure" was established with the A-5, they both talk about fires continuing to plague the aircraft. A different reference to Griehl/Dressel says: "In the Griehl/Dressel book on the He177 for the period March to August 1944 there are some 36 177 losses for KG 1 most down to technical reasons."
Even KG1's efforts against Soviet targets from German airfields yielded well above normal rates of engine failures late in the war, with A-3s and A-5s.
Quick google search for He177 Order of Battle:
"LW OoB May 31 1944 - He 177A
Stab/KG 1 2/1 (on hand/servicable)
I/KG 1 30/11
II/KG 1 29/0
III/KG 1 30/12
II/KG 100 30/0
part I/KG 40 30(20)/21(11)
II/KG 40 30/26
3./KG 40 10/10
That is 181 'on hand' but ONLY 71 'sevicable' > 39%. A good indication that all was not well with the He177."
Even when "fixed" it was still a terrible plane.
Folks see this plane on paper and want it because of the "potentially" high bomb loads. It's misleading. It never flew with the max loads unless you count it carrying 2 or 4 guided glider bombs or missiles, each of which could weigh 2000+ pounds. These were also exclusively anti-shipping. When actual bombs were carried, most flew with 4000kg or less.
(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/184416d1322197758t-he-177-combat-history-he177-bomb-load-range.bmp)
Otherwise they wouldn't have the operational range to reach London (during the black of night) and come back. In the East, they wouldn't use more than 1000kg, because they had to fly at extreme ranges into Soviet territory and back. They flew so high no VVS fighters were there to stop them. Sometimes they set up racetracks and orbited over targets for hours and bombed in waves. That takes a LOT of fuel, which means they were carrying very FEW bombs. In short, people want it added to this game out of reasons of ignorance. They want a "German B17" (quoted because that kind of term is used in most of the requests for the He-177).
-
Seems to me that the HE177 performed more missions than a few planes already in game.
-
...
Folks see this plane on paper and want it because of the "potentially" high bomb loads. It's misleading. It never flew with the max loads unless you count it carrying 2 or 4 guided glider bombs or missiles, each of which could weigh 2000+ pounds. These were also exclusively anti-shipping. When actual bombs were carried, most flew with 4000kg or less.
Otherwise they wouldn't have the operational range to reach London (during the black of night) and come back. In the East, they wouldn't use more than 1000kg, because they had to fly at extreme ranges into Soviet territory and back. They flew so high no VVS fighters were there to stop them. Sometimes they set up racetracks and orbited over targets for hours and bombed in waves. That takes a LOT of fuel, which means they were carrying very FEW bombs. In short, people want it added to this game out of reasons of ignorance. They want a "German B17" (quoted because that kind of term is used in most of the requests for the He-177).
I'm not vouching to have the He111 in AH for any reasons of ignorance or "potentially" high bomb loads. I've always maintained that the He111 would be used similarly to the B25C and B26 currently in AH because of close similarities of bomb load (4000kg/4400 lbs "standard" max load), speed (260-275 mph), and range (more range than B26, less than B25). And to its credit it would have a better chance defensively than the B25C thanks to gun coverage in the ventral position. Evidently, as the variants progressed and developed, the "best" variant of the He111 allowed for 8/250kg bombs to be carried internally. I can't find any concrete evidence that any ordnance was carried externally if the 8/250 kg were carried internally though, at least not as a standard practice. I do not have a printed source detailing how or where the smaller bombs were mounted and how many were able to be carried, at least in detail.
Obviously, it would be instantly felt in scenarios. Without question, I argue that it is the biggest hole in the AH German plane set, AND that it is not going to be any more of a hanger queen in the MA's than the B25, Ju88, G4M, or Ki-67. It may even find a niche as a German version of the A20. No, it is not going to deliver the same results as a heavy bomber, but so what.
I'm having issues with people who think this bomber should be excluded "out of ignorance".
-
SmokinLoon,
Krusty isn't talking about the He111, One One One. He is talking about the He177, One Seven Seven.
-
lift loading
What is lift loading?
-
Bullpoop. The He177 was designed in 1936 and mocked up in 1937 originally for the "Bomber A" requirement. In Nov 1937 it was given its RLM type number 8-177. Prototypes flew in 1939, when the Do17 was being replaced by the He-111.
You want to know what was to replace the He-111, though not explicitly designed to? The Ju-88. And it did, for the most part. The Ju-188, 288, and 388, were being pursued as the primary successors to all Luftwaffe bombing (with minor exceptions in the jet family, grossly mismanaged by Hitler).
The He177 wasn't designed or intended to "replace" anything.
The He-111 would cease to be produced as the He-177 came into full production since it would occupy Heinkel's production lines. Is that clear enough? The fast bomber role was covered, the He-111 just was a production place holder until the Greif was ready to take its place in the bomber force.
However, in mid 1944, even at the end, the loss rates due to engine problems were still quite present.
Quick wiki copy, but you can find it in several books as well:
"As the war progressed, He 177 operations became increasingly desultory. Fuel and personnel shortages presented difficulties, and He 177s were sitting on airfields all over Europe awaiting new engines or engine related modifications. During Operation Steinbock, of the 14 He 177 sent out, one suffered a burst tire, 8 returned with overheating or burning engines and of the 4 that reached London one was lost to night fighters. These aircraft were brand new [...]"
That's only 13, though. What wiki doesn't say is another turned back before it even left French airspace, due to mechanical difficulties!
8 out of 14? That's over 50% engine loss rates in one mission alone! In Jan-May 1944! With the "fixed" problems! Those are "new" craft in 1944, that means A-5s. Just because they weren't bursting into flames ALL the time doesn't mean they weren't bursting into piles of scrap metal. They had a very complicated gearbox mechanism and designs like this (side by side engines) on any side during the war had a high failure rate.
-1 for quoting from wiki and even then mutilating the quote, I will complete it just so it is clear:
"These aircraft were brand new, delivered a week before the operation and not fully flown-in, as the air unit had moved to a new airfield the day before and lacked sufficient maintenance personnel and material."
These are the points you will constantly see highlighted in books on the He-177, maintenance, training and logistical issues ended up being the major issue. It is disappointing to see you resort to a partial in an attempt to score a point.
Oh, btw, those couldnt be A5s since KG 40 was actually pulled form the operation in February to be reequipped with A5s, but lets see why your speculations and mutilated quotes are misleading, from Griehl:
"In many cases, the crews involved were relatively young and inexperienced. The largest number of returnees came From the KG 100 combat group, I/KG 100: no less than 14 of its crews abandoned their mission and returned home early. More than anything else, most of the pilots living He 177s initially had no idea about the bomber's prescribed engine revs and highest permissible climbing speeds. The inevitable resulting powerplant overstressing led to no less than seven crashes and engine fires. Other crews undercut the minimum permissible speed, stalled and crashed. Prior to that, problems had arisen due to the sudden move to a new base at short notice, which had left too little time for comprehensive servicing of the A-3s assigned."
A3s are clearly identified, just as the cause of the problems, lack of adequate training and maintenance.
Gixxer comments he has both the J Richard Smith & Eddit J Creeks book and the Manfred Griehl & Joachim Dressel book and both seem to agree that even after the "cure" was established with the A-5, they both talk about fires continuing to plague the aircraft. A different reference to Griehl/Dressel says: "In the Griehl/Dressel book on the He177 for the period March to August 1944 there are some 36 177 losses for KG 1 most down to technical reasons."
Even KG1's efforts against Soviet targets from German airfields yielded well above normal rates of engine failures late in the war, with A-3s and A-5s.
Oh? You mean the unit that has just been formed and received mostly old A1s and barely any maintenance equipment and crews to start training suffered losses? Shocking. The quote I made earlier from Price about KG1 addresses exactly the issue you mention, how once training got up to speed such incidents were reduced dramatically. You either need to read more on the issue or start being more honest in your arguments.
Quick google search for He177 Order of Battle:
"LW OoB May 31 1944 - He 177A
Stab/KG 1 2/1 (on hand/servicable)
I/KG 1 30/11
II/KG 1 29/0
III/KG 1 30/12
II/KG 100 30/0
part I/KG 40 30(20)/21(11)
II/KG 40 30/26
3./KG 40 10/10
That is 181 'on hand' but ONLY 71 'sevicable' > 39%. A good indication that all was not well with the He177."
Even when "fixed" it was still a terrible plane.
See the zeros? Dont they seem odd to you? I will explain then to you since you clearly had no interest in finding out why such thing happened as long as you could claim they serve to prove your point.
II/KG 100 was just transitioning into the type, it was not an operational unit and was still flying Do-217K2s as late as April, they received A3s initially an then all were swapped with new A5s equipped for guided bombs, problem was, the Kehl IV installation was incomplete and therefore the aircraft were not operational. As it was usual with the He-177 the production of spares, replacement parts adn specialized equipment never kept up which further hindered their operation.
This very same Gruppe had a 90% serviceability rate a few months later.
II/KG 40 was refitting with new A5s as well and ran into the same issues which is why you have that odd "0" for these 2 units.
Btw, this was a unit that just before was reporting 80% readiness:
"One positive aspect of the operations was that the operational safety and reliability of the He I77A-3 had been improved, doing away with the need for the usual six- and 12fi-hour control checks. The regular 25-, 50- and 75-hour inspections were now completely sufficient, with special attention being paid to servicing of the coupled powerplants after 50 flying hours.
According to the technicians, the He 177 service-ability rate of II/ KG 40 was frequently in the order of 80 per cent; a great improvement over the 30 per cent or so recorded during the Gruppe's training phase, when flying operations were noticeably affected by moisture in the air which led to frequent accidental earthing of onboard electrical equipment. In contrast to the situation with I/KG 40, only one aircraft assigned to II /KG 40 was lost due to powerplant failure. During operations against Great Britain there had been numerous power-plant problems, caused mainly by the undertrained aircrews overstraining the engines. On the positive side, the Bordeaux-Merignac-based Grippe had carried out the first He 177 long-range flight (lasting 12fi hours) and proposed to increase the aircraft's range still further by using 900-hr (198 Imp gal) underwing auxiliary fuel tanks. Despite this overload, but obviously helped by the even stressing of both powerplants during the long-range flights, it had proved possible to operate engines for up to 115 flying hours without any problems."
See the difference? When maintenance and training were allowed to take place you have a far different result.
Folks see this plane on paper and want it because of the "potentially" high bomb loads. It's misleading. It never flew with the max loads unless you count it carrying 2 or 4 guided glider bombs or missiles, each of which could weigh 2000+ pounds. These were also exclusively anti-shipping. When actual bombs were carried, most flew with 4000kg or less.
(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/184416d1322197758t-he-177-combat-history-he177-bomb-load-range.bmp)
All aircraft had to make tradeoffs when carrying heavy loads and the Greif was no exception, but during Steinbock the trained crews carried 2x1800Kg and 2x1000Kg bombs, that is 5600Kg and as you own chart shows 7000Kg was an option.
Otherwise they wouldn't have the operational range to reach London (during the black of night) and come back. In the East, they wouldn't use more than 1000kg, because they had to fly at extreme ranges into Soviet territory and back. They flew so high no VVS fighters were there to stop them. Sometimes they set up racetracks and orbited over targets for hours and bombed in waves. That takes a LOT of fuel, which means they were carrying very FEW bombs. In short, people want it added to this game out of reasons of ignorance. They want a "German B17" (quoted because that kind of term is used in most of the requests for the He-177).
Ridicoulous. 1000Kg were used for long range targets and heavier loads for closer ones as Steinbock shows, it all depends on the operational needs and attack profile, it does not mean that they ALWAYS used such loads, that is simply preposterous.
I think it is clear in which side of this argument ignorance has its reign...
-
The He-111 would cease to be produced as the He-177 came into full production since it would occupy Heinkel's production lines. Is that clear enough? The fast bomber role was covered, the He-111 just was a production place holder until the Greif was ready to take its place in the bomber force.
"Replaced by X on the production line." has literally no bearing on "Replaced by X in service."
-
"Replaced by X on the production line." has literally no bearing on "Replaced by X in service."
And where exactly did I say that the Greif replaced the He-111 in service?
Furthermore, we agree the Greif was to replace the He-111 in production and was therefore its replacement?
-
And where exactly did I say that the Greif replaced the He-111 in service?
Here:
If you want a bomber for historical scenarios get a He-111, if you want one for the MA get its replacement, the He-177.
Replaced in production is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand and the automatic inference is going to be that you mean replaced in service unless you specify otherwise, which you did not.
Furthermore, we agree the Greif was to replace the He-111 in production and was therefore its replacement?
Of course not. That would be false.
-
How is that irrelevant, because you said so?
Do I really need to quote a dictionary definition of Replacement? It only seems you got into this argument to discuss semantics and what I meant when I wrote.
Do you think production of the obsolete He-111 would be continued once Greif production went into full scale? Of course not, you are creating a discussion out of nothing, as if I could have ever said that the He-111 was phased out of service when its widely known they kept on being used and built until all bombers were grounded.
-
Stop prevaricating.
When somebody says "The F-15 replaced the F-4." any reasonable listener is going to think that the speaker is talking about in service unless the conversation has been focused on production lines and such. When talking about aircraft used by the Luftwaffe, "replaced" is going to mean "replaced in service."
You're being pedantic in trying to retroactively change what you said because you got called out on a falsehood.
The He177 was not intended to replace anything. It was a new role, heavy bomber, for the Luftwaffe. The He111 was replaced by the Ju88 and the developments of the Ju88 as well as by the Do217.
-
Of course not Karnak. He's spinning for all he's worth. Like he said, ignorance has its reign, and the king is jag88. He's trying his utter best to justify his want for this plane (or boast that this plane was superb). It's a common stance for select fanatics on these forums.
I didn't mutilate a quote. He's trying to turn it around like a few bbs forum-goers tend to do when they don't have any standing.
You turn it around saying that it was recently arrived to a new airfield. That doesn't mean this crew was untrained and the planes were in disarray. The planes were new, fresh, and as pristine and in best working condition they would ever be in. Simply because they were new to an airfield doesn't mean they couldn't run missions. Ju88s, Me410s, Bf109s, Fw190s, all switched fields VERY frequently, and they didn't have 50% engine failures right after moves.
Yes, there were a lot of maintenance problems with the He177, notably the wheel jacks, the time it took (up to 3 days to finish a simple inspection after 24 hours of flight time), but that doesn't mean they threw them into the air if they weren't functioning. They wouldn't say "Ah, screw it, this engine isn't working but we'll send it up anyways" -- no, that plane sat on the ground until it was fixed.
You seem to be totally ignoring the fact that no matter how well trained the ground crew, the engines weren't up to it. They didn't have the right infrastructure to remove, overhaul, and replace the engines. They sent them out for overhauling but they often wouldn't get done. There were bad results with getting overhauled engines back, and sometimes they got mixed up. Meaning engine changes would put bad engines on after removing bad engines.
Don't try to pass it off as JUST human error. It wasn't. It was mechanical failures compounded by human failures. Your loaded phrasing is fallacious, saying "the trained crews" again implying it was all training issues.
The design itself was greatly flawed. Heinkel had grossly over-stated the load bearing capability of the wings. I believe it was Goring (or somebody high up like him) who watched as one heavily loaded He177 took off and as soon as it was over a hill it crashed and exploded, and then another taking off also crashed. The wings couldn't take it. That was the real reason for the 4-engine redesign, to hide the flaws with the wing. The wings were strengthened in later marks, but overall it was an over-engineered design with major technical problems which couldn't be fully overcome.
-
You have just said regarding the Ju-88 the same thing I said about the He-177, of course I could assume you are talking about the fast bomber concept and that might be reasonable but, since all I am interested in is in creating an issue where none exists then I opt to believe that you think no He-111s were built after 1940 since they were replaced by Ju-88s and Do-217s so...
Really? The 1940 Ju-88 replaced the He-111? So the Germans did not build 4088 He-111s 4 years after the Ju-88 went into full production in 1940?
Funny.
Regarding "falsehoods" yeah... you just want to believe that the guy who usually includes quotes to back his arguments believes that the He-111 was at some point fully retired from service and replaced by He-177s...
Since you are very negative about the He-177 you certainly seem to wish so...
-
Of course not Karnak. He's spinning for all he's worth. Like he said, ignorance has its reign, and the king is jag88. He's trying his utter best to justify his want for this plane (or boast that this plane was superb). It's a common stance for select fanatics on these forums.
I didn't mutilate a quote. He's trying to turn it around like a few bbs forum-goers tend to do when they don't have any standing.
You turn it around saying that it was recently arrived to a new airfield. That doesn't mean this crew was untrained and the planes were in disarray. The planes were new, fresh, and as pristine and in best working condition they would ever be in. Simply because they were new to an airfield doesn't mean they couldn't run missions. Ju88s, Me410s, Bf109s, Fw190s, all switched fields VERY frequently, and they didn't have 50% engine failures right after moves.
Yes, there were a lot of maintenance problems with the He177, notably the wheel jacks, the time it took (up to 3 days to finish a simple inspection after 24 hours of flight time), but that doesn't mean they threw them into the air if they weren't functioning. They wouldn't say "Ah, screw it, this engine isn't working but we'll send it up anyways" -- no, that plane sat on the ground until it was fixed.
You seem to be totally ignoring the fact that no matter how well trained the ground crew, the engines weren't up to it. They didn't have the right infrastructure to remove, overhaul, and replace the engines. They sent them out for overhauling but they often wouldn't get done. There were bad results with getting overhauled engines back, and sometimes they got mixed up. Meaning engine changes would put bad engines on after removing bad engines.
Don't try to pass it off as JUST human error. It wasn't. It was mechanical failures compounded by human failures. Your loaded phrasing is fallacious, saying "the trained crews" again implying it was all training issues.
The design itself was greatly flawed. Heinkel had grossly over-stated the load bearing capability of the wings. I believe it was Goring (or somebody high up like him) who watched as one heavily loaded He177 took off and as soon as it was over a hill it crashed and exploded, and then another taking off also crashed. The wings couldn't take it. That was the real reason for the 4-engine redesign, to hide the flaws with the wing. The wings were strengthened in later marks, but overall it was an over-engineered design with major technical problems which couldn't be fully overcome.
Lol, yeah, I thought you wouldnt like being called in a blatant attempt to lie, how desperate you have to be to mutilate a quote from wiki, at least edit the wiki entry, put some effort into it! Anyways.
Lets see, training:
"The Technical School of Luftflotte 2 responsible for training ground personnel at Fassberg had two He 177s for instructional purposes, these being the second A-0 built by Arado and an A-1. In June 1943, IV/ KG 40 also had only two He 177 training aircraft, both A-0s, to instruct its crews on this new long-range bomber. The number was increased during the second half of 1943 with the arrival of 12 Kekf-equipped and several other He 177s; but due to the aforementioned grounding of all He 177s between February and May, training could not restart until October. A good seven months had been lost.
Early in 1944, the training unit was transferred to Lechfeld. A more serious problem was the lack of operationally experienced aircrews for instructional purposes. Due to the high loss rate II/KG 40 could not transfer any experienced crews to IV/KG 40 until March 1944, when two crews were made available for this vital task. As a result of this personnel shortage, 24 aircrews had to be handed over to I and II / KCl 40 after only 15 hours of instruction on the He 177. Not only that; none of the new crews could complete their 'special weapon' training while at IV/KG 40 for lack of a proper bombing range. On 14 April 1944 IV/KG 40 had a total of 35 He 177A-0 / -1 /-3s, of which only 13 were serviceable. There were six instructors to train the young crews on the Fw 200, and 10 others for the He 177 — a total of just 16 instructors for no less than 80 student crews! Matters were made worse by the low serviceability of the He 177s used for training purposes due to the lack of replacement power-plants, and the loss of new-build He 177s as a result of enemy air raids."
This is the kind of training new pilots were getting, is no wonder equipment problems were exacerbated and new ones created. No one is trying to claim the aircraft en even less its engines were perfect, far from it, but in spite of them the aircraft did attain a reasonable readiness and serviceability that made it viable and were not falling in flames from the sky as you like to imply.
Trained crews could and did use the aircraft more efficiently, which is why they could use 5600Kg loads to raid London when the new crews, those 15 hour guys, used only 4000Kg loads, not less as you so tendentiously tried to imply.
I can quote similar passages for the ground crews which handled and mishandled maintenance, or often simply lacked the necessary tools to service and replace engines and even tires... but somehow I get the feel you are one of those guys immune to facts, quotes and evidence...
Note that lack of infrastructure you now recognize is not the planes fault and is symptomatic of how ill-prepared the Luftwaffe was to field the aircraft, the 80 and 90% serviceability rates achieved stand as proof of what could be obtained when things were done properly.
Your mentions crashes, prototypes of all aircraft often did but, as you so slyly recognize, those wing faults were corrected by Heinkel fairly early and reinforced even further when inclined flight tests showed the need for more strength.
Oh, you mentioned aircaft at their best when delivered, that is not the case when they have not been properly tested before delivery and this happened often, I can quote the source... but why bother?
Bottomline, the aircraft did achieve a reasonable serviceability, sadly it happened too late when the Luftwaffe had no further use for bombers. Had the diving request been dropped and equipped with 4 engines as the Manchester did and it might have been very different story.
Oh, and please quote the date in which these 2 aircraft you mention crashed? I smell another major load of bovine excrement...
-
The closest aircraft to the He177 is, in many ways, the Avro Manchester. Perhaps the He277 would have been a winner as the Lancaster was, but the He177 never got a chance to go to four engines like that.
The Avro Manchester was a disaster in service as well. The program was canceled well short of its original size and Avro was asked to build either Short Stirlings or Handley-Page Halifaxes. It was only a desperation redesign of the Manchester, using already designed Merlin engine mounts for Beaufighters, that allowed Avro to keep building their own design as the Lancaster.
-
Such fallacy again... ALL German pilots were getting the same short training hours. It was a desperate time. However, the lack of training was most evient in combat experience, NOT in the plane falling apart. green 109 pilots got the shaft more so. Hell, they took bf110G back-seaters and gave them 21 hours and put them in the FRONT seat of Me262s!
And yet... strangely enough, the new crews on Ju88s weren't blowing out engines repeatedly. 109 pilots weren't turning back at 50%+ failure rates. Me410 pilots weren't setting engines on fire.
You're using poor training as a crutch of an explanation, because you don't want to believe otherwise. You are fully ignorant of any history of the He111 or Ju88, so your "expertise" is highly doubtful in other areas of similar bombers. The He111s production continued, but only at a trickle. It was used as a VIP transport and other test beds, all the way through the war. It was NOT the main frontline bomber for the LW. Everybody acknowledges this. The Ju88 was more durable, more flexible, had better performance, better defenses, better bombload, and better future upgradability. Oh, and it was faster to build, cost less money, and took less man hours and metal to produce. It was conciously chosen to be the future of LW bombing as early as 1940.
This is a basic principle of Luftwaffe bombers. If you don't know any of this, you're barking up a wrong tree, and cherry picking tidbits from some book you read without really understanding the big picture or what really was going on. You read 1 book and then spit it out as if you're an expert. You have no credibility after many of your own comments prove to be hilariously false.
-
Such fallacy again... ALL German pilots were getting the same short training hours. It was a desperate time. However, the lack of training was most evient in combat experience, NOT in the plane falling apart. green 109 pilots got the shaft more so. Hell, they took bf110G back-seaters and gave them 21 hours and put them in the FRONT seat of Me262s!
And yet... strangely enough, the new crews on Ju88s weren't blowing out engines repeatedly. 109 pilots weren't turning back at 50%+ failure rates. Me410 pilots weren't setting engines on fire.
You're using poor training as a crutch of an explanation, because you don't want to believe otherwise. You are fully ignorant of any history of the He111 or Ju88, so your "expertise" is highly doubtful in other areas of similar bombers. The He111s production continued, but only at a trickle. It was used as a VIP transport and other test beds, all the way through the war. It was NOT the main frontline bomber for the LW. Everybody acknowledges this. The Ju88 was more durable, more flexible, had better performance, better defenses, better bombload, and better future upgradability. Oh, and it was faster to build, cost less money, and took less man hours and metal to produce. It was conciously chosen to be the future of LW bombing as early as 1940.
This is a basic principle of Luftwaffe bombers. If you don't know any of this, you're barking up a wrong tree, and cherry picking tidbits from some book you read without really understanding the big picture or what really was going on. You read 1 book and then spit it out as if you're an expert. You have no credibility after many of your own comments prove to be hilariously false.
Man, you are truly amusing!
My comments false? Maybe I missed the loads of quotes and sources that indicate my arguments were wrong... maybe I got distracted... but I believe is far more likely you are full of crap, I see you have not produced a source for the 2 aircraft you claimed crashed in a single exhibition so I am counting that as yet another lie.
It is hilarious to see you lie desperately, making carp left and right trying to justify your ignorant rants. This is the He-111 production you claim became a trickle:
Year 1942 1943 1944
Quarter Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
N Produced 301 350 356 330 462 340 302 301 313 317 126 0
As you can see you lie, again, there is barely any reduction in production until the Luftwaffe cancelled all bomber orders, they kept on making 111s in Heinkel factories instead of Ju-88s because they were waiting for the Greif production to take over... I copied it from wiki, but only because they included a footnote and source... and I didnt mutilate anything.
You seem too dense to understand that all the models you mention already had the infrastructure and training establishment in place and ready to accept new recruits while the He-177 lacked all that, not only the training was short, the quality of it was wanting since they couldnt divert crews for training. And no, Bf-110 pilots were not being sent to Me-262s in early 1944 with 21 hours... there were no Me-262s in early 1944 (the test unit was formed in april). Later on the Luftwaffe would resort to send poorly trained fighter pilots many of them form bomber units, but that was after they had no fuel to train them, not voluntarily and on a whim which was the case with Steinbock.
Speaking of credibility, I quote and mention my sources, dont make crap out of thin air as you do and at least I know that the He-111 kept on being built for a long time after the Ju-88 came into service, not because it was better, not because it was comparable, not even close, but because they needed bombers and it did not make sense to retool for Ju-88s and delay production when "soon" you would have to retool for He-177s anyway.
What a joke.
-
The closest aircraft to the He177 is, in many ways, the Avro Manchester. Perhaps the He277 would have been a winner as the Lancaster was, but the He177 never got a chance to go to four engines like that.
The Avro Manchester was a disaster in service as well. The program was canceled well short of its original size and Avro was asked to build either Short Stirlings or Handley-Page Halifaxes. It was only a desperation redesign of the Manchester, using already designed Merlin engine mounts for Beaufighters, that allowed Avro to keep building their own design as the Lancaster.
Yes, the parallels are striking, Heinkel repeatedly requested that at least 2 of the prototypes be made with 4 engines but it was rejected on the grounds that such an aircraft would not be able to dive. Madness.
-
+1 for the He 111.
H3/4 for early war.
H6 for early-mid
H11/H16.
Differences between H3 and 4, and H11 and 16 are more ordnance options, and revised armament, respectively.
-
Adding to my last, the LW could have easily fielded something like this had they authorized those four engined prototypes 4 years earlier when proposed:
(http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/photo_albums/timeline/ww2/2/7.jpg)
This is the B5 prototype, the 4 engined version of the A5 that flew in Dec. 1943.
-
The warbirds main arena had AI formations of either Do17 or He111 and a lot of guys flew around and shot them up for score because they had no defensive gunners.
But.....you could attach as a gunner.....which is what I did.
Wait for the scoremonger to slowly come up trying to shoot at point blank range to keep his hit percentage high and then unload into the side of his cockpit from a plane next to the one he's shooting.
Awesome fun.
-
Woo Hoo!!! The He-111 was just added!!! :banana:
Ok, now everybody chant: Do 217, Do 217, Do 217...
-
Woo Hoo!!! The He-111 was just added!!! :banana:
Ok, now everybody chant: Do 217, Do 217, Do 217...
Ju188, Ju188, Ju188...
-
Ju188, Ju188, Ju188...
Wellington, Wellington, Wellington...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/Lord_Arthur_Wellesley_the_Duke_of_Wellington.jpg/220px-Lord_Arthur_Wellesley_the_Duke_of_Wellington.jpg)
No not that one
-
:lol
-
Ju188, Ju188, Ju188...
He177, He177, He177...
-
He177, He177, He177...
+1 +1 +1...
(Its faster than a Ju-188... and meaner looking)
-
+1 +1 +1...
(Its faster than a Ju-188... and meaner looking)
And yet it was vastly inferior....
-
Wellington or Il-4 makes the most sense now. I'd love to see the Wellington, but the Soviets are missing a level bomber and the Il-4 was their workhorse bomber.
-
Wellington, SM-79, Do-17, Il-4, Pe-2, H8K and the hella-cool Ventura get my vote.
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/air_ventura2.jpg)
-
And yet it was vastly inferior....
Vastly? How so? For starters the He-177 was faster, carried a heavier load and had a longer range... sadly, in spite of its good looks and better defensive armament, performance-wise the Ju-188 was not much of an improvement over the Ju-88 to warrant replacing it in the production line, which is why so few of them were made and all the chips placed in the Ju-388.
-
Ju188A-1 could do better than 330mph, a substantial improvement over the Ju88. The problem wasn't that it wasn't a big improvement, it was that the Germans were so pressed for production they couldn't spare the time to retool their production lines. That wasn't just a German thing either, big improvements to things like the Lancaster, P-38 and F6F were passed over due to the production delays that would have been incurred.
The Ju188 was superior to the He177 because when you sent 20 Ju188s on a mission with no enemy opposition you could reasonably expect that more than 12 of them would actually complete it whereas not so much with the He177. Yes, a higher percentage of those He177s that didn't suffer mechanical failures would survive, but if you are looking are overall failure to complete the mission the winner is clear.
-
Ju188A-1 could do better than 330mph, a substantial improvement over the Ju88. The problem wasn't that it wasn't a big improvement, it was that the Germans were so pressed for production they couldn't spare the time to retool their production lines. That wasn't just a German thing either, big improvements to things like the Lancaster, P-38 and F6F were passed over due to the production delays that would have been incurred.
The Ju188 was superior to the He177 because when you sent 20 Ju188s on a mission with no enemy opposition you could reasonably expect that more than 12 of them would actually complete it whereas not so much with the He177. Yes, a higher percentage of those He177s that didn't suffer mechanical failures would survive, but if you are looking are overall failure to complete the mission the winner is clear.
Problem is performance data varies wildly, I have often seen 310mph for the 188, barely 15mph over the 88 and less than the later S models, that is a modest improvement at best.
You seem to be stuck with the idea that the He-177 was extremely unreliable, that was not the case by mid-late 1944 when most problems had been fixed or mitigated by improved logistics and training. Do I really need to start quoting readiness figures again? It gets tiresome when people do not respond in kind.
-
Depends on if it is a Ju188E with the stopgap engines or a Ju188A with the engines it was intended to have. The airframe was ready before the intended engines had been fully developed. Consequently the Ju188E is notably slower than the Ju188A.
-
I say add the ju388!
-
Depends on if it is a Ju188E with the stopgap engines or a Ju188A with the engines it was intended to have. The airframe was ready before the intended engines had been fully developed. Consequently the Ju188E is notably slower than the Ju188A.
I missed this one, the 188E stopgap engines were BMW 801D2, a whooping 75PS weaker than the Jumo 213 of the 188A, good for a 20kph difference between the variants (Nowarra).
WOuld love a Ju-388, but if the He-177 is controversial imagine the Stortebecker!
-
I missed this one, the 188E stopgap engines were BMW 801D2, a whooping 75PS weaker than the Jumo 213 of the 188A, good for a 20kph difference between the variants (Nowarra).
WOuld love a Ju-388, but if the He-177 is controversial imagine the Stortebecker!
Power is only part of the story. Drag of the installation and critical altitudes matter as well.
-
Power is only part of the story. Drag of the installation and critical altitudes matter as well.
Yes, and Nowarra indicates that such differences amounted to 20kph. What do your sources say?
-
I could do the Wellington chant! :cheers:
Wellington, Wellington, Wellington...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/Lord_Arthur_Wellesley_the_Duke_of_Wellington.jpg/220px-Lord_Arthur_Wellesley_the_Duke_of_Wellington.jpg)
No not that one