Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Tank-Ace on September 10, 2013, 07:17:48 PM
-
Can we please have a Do 217? Germans pretty much have to make due with the Ju-88 for the span of 1942 to 1945. The Do 217, along with the Ju-188, made up a good portion of the German bomber forces from 1943 onwards.
The Do 217 seems to be the best German bomber we could get at the moment, everything factored in. It has decent special event value, and would be almost perk worthy in the MA, really only suffering from a lack of defensive armament.
Carrying 3000kg (6600lbs) internally or 4000kg (8800lbs) on both internal and external racks, the Do 217M-1 would be armed with 4 7.92mm machine guns in the nose and beam positions, and 2 13mm machine guns in the dorsal and ventral positions.
The Do 217 was capable of around 346mph at 19,000ft, making it the fourth fastest bomber in the game, and possibly the fastest perk free bomber.
-
I'd still rather have the Ju188A for that 20mm cannon in the top turret, but a Do217 would be nice to shoot at.
-
If you can intercept it :noid.
I'm curious, does anyone have a speed chart for the Do 217? Just a complete guess, but I'd estimate 275-300mph on the deck, based on its speed at alt.
-
If you can intercept it :noid.
I'm curious, does anyone have a speed chart for the Do 217? Just a complete guess, but I'd estimate 275-300mph on the deck, based on its speed at alt.
No it doesnt go that fast. It does 230 on the deck, some where around 280 at 20k, I think the 275 you estimate is when its empty.
-
Actually, a 217M without bombs had a top speed around 325 mph.
With bombs it should not be that difficult to intercept.
-
Tell me, why do we need more German aircraft before we add in more Italian and Russian planes?
-
Tell me, why do we need more German aircraft before we add in more Italian and Russian planes?
Do-17 should be added along with Do-217, Although the Do-17 earns its spot before hand because of the battle of britain, however if you look at any of the specs on it, its like adding the Ki-21 - nothing but a target to shoot down, it won't be flown in the MA and for scenarios its nothing more then a target.
-
Do-17 should be added along with Do-217, Although the Do-17 earns its spot before hand because of the battle of britain, however if you look at any of the specs on it, its like adding the Ki-21 - nothing but a target to shoot down, it won't be flown in the MA and for scenarios its nothing more then a target.
If we need it for the BOB scenario's then why don't we have it already? What we really need is Russian bombers, hell, maybe even some French fighters.
Right now we don't need more hangar queens added. We need plane sets filled out.
-
If we need it for the BOB scenario's then why don't we have it already? What we really need is Russian bombers, hell, maybe even some French fighters.
Right now we don't need more hangar queens added. We need plane sets filled out.
I want the DO-17 added in game eventually, however if it came down to a vote I would not vote on it, normally I would but the He-111 was just added. Pe-2 and Tu-2 both need to be added (for the russian side that is).
I would go on a limb and say the Japanese need a historical bomber as well.
-
Right now we don't need more hangar queens added. We need plane sets filled out.
That's a vote for the Do-217 :D
-
I want the DO-17 added in game eventually, however if it came down to a vote I would not vote on it, normally I would but the He-111 was just added. Pe-2 and Tu-2 both need to be added (for the russian side that is).
I would go on a limb and say the Japanese need a historical bomber as well.
There is one Japanese historical bomber in game.
However it is a massive hangar queen.
And almost useless.
The DO-217 can be added, much later, but as of now there are more important things needed.
-
There is one Japanese historical bomber in game.
However it is a massive hangar queen.
And almost useless
pssst... we have two of them, with one seeing quite it's share of usage.
And the "useless" one has actually become my tactical bomber #1, because it's much less useless one might think, if used properly ;)
-
If we need it for the BOB scenario's then why don't we have it already? What we really need is Russian bombers, hell, maybe even some French fighters.
Right now we don't need more hangar queens added. We need plane sets filled out.
Who's this "we" you speak of? A mouse in your pocket? Any new aircraft is a good addition, period.
Just because you don't like it does not mean others share your opinion.
-
pssst... we have two of them, with one seeing quite it's share of usage.
And the "useless" one has actually become my tactical bomber #1, because it's much less useless one might think, if used properly ;)
Useless depends on the arena. Late war the G4M is easily killed by any kind of mid-late war plane if you stay away from the 20mm in the back. Even then that 20mm only tends to knock out engines in my experiences.
-
Useless depends on the arena. Late war the G4M is easily killed by any kind of mid-late war plane if you stay away from the 20mm in the back. Even then that 20mm only tends to knock out engines in my experiences.
I fly it in LW, and utilizing it's rather unique performance characteristic allows me to survive the vast majority of my sorties in it.
Something that I would much more difficult to do doing the same in several other bombers, notably the B-25C or He 111.
-
I fly it in LW, and utilizing it's rather unique performance characteristic allows me to survive the vast majority of my sorties in it.
Something that I would much more difficult to do doing the same in several other bombers, notably the B-25C or He 111.
I keep forgetting you and the other Euro guys usually fly at the time when theres no more than 100, maybe 150 people online.
Not too hard to keep away from the fly swatter if nobody's swinging.
-
I keep forgetting you and the other Euro guys usually fly at the time when theres no more than 100, maybe 150 people online.
Not too hard to keep away from the fly swatter if nobody's swinging.
That's quite some assumption.
What time do we have now? ;)
-
I keep forgetting you and the other Euro guys usually fly at the time when theres no more than 100, maybe 150 people online.
Not too hard to keep away from the fly swatter if nobody's swinging.
That isn't what Lusche is saying. He uses it for fast strikes on frontline bases in the face of opposition. It climbs so much faster than most other bombers that it can get up, get in above the fighters and get out before it is intercepted.
I have used it thus during American hours too.
Sure, you're mostly toast if actually intercepted, but it is more useful than many claim it to be.
-
Of the 217s in all variants, the most common were recon variants and maritime patrol variants.
They did not "make up a good portion" of the Luftwaffe bomber fleet, as their role in actual use as bombers was fairly small.
I'll copy and paste remarks I made on the subjects some time ago:
The E-1 had only 2000kg payloads (4400lbs, to round it off).
The E-2 brought this up to 4000kg (8800lb roughly). 2000kg-2500kg internally, the rest externally on shackles. The E-2 was equal parts anti-shipping and level bombing, so it's possible this 8000kg is a pair of very heavy glider bombs under the wings. Some navy patrol bombers carried 2x 1000kg bombs under the wings, so this would also account for the bomb load being split up internal/external.
The E-3 was a specific anti-shipping variant with extra armor.
The E-4 was a more of a bomber variant, and I'd say probably the best candidate for Aces High. However, it still was used against shipping and as maritime recon etc. As this was one of the few post-BOB bombers that could reach the UK and back, half the bomb bay (perhaps an entirely separate bomb bay, like on the Ju88?) was used for a gas tank to extend range. That would be the normal configuration.
The last E was the E-5. Only 65 or so of these were built and the main intent was hanging the Fritz-X anti-shipping missile under the wings. The 217K and M models did this better and replaced the E line. The E-4 was being replaced by the 217K in September 1942, even.
Initially they were used for bombing (ca. 1940 to 1942), but the majority of the effort they put into the war up until 1944-45 was recon, maritime patrol, anti-shipping with glider bombs or rockets, and eventually a large portion was night fighter variants. After the 217E every major model that was made (J/K/M/N) was used mostly for recon, glider bombs, or night fighting. None of which "work" with Aces High.
Of the total 500 or so E models that were made, they were used for navy patrols, anti shipping duties, glider bombs, as well as revenge bombings ordered by Hitler on British cities. Only so many were used for level bombing and still suffered very heavy losses anywhere allied fighters found them. While they aren't "nothing" in the historical sense, I still say they are a drop in the bucket compared to German production numbers and other aircraft. They're a footnote.
*end copy/paste*
Now let's talk production....
•Prototypes: 15
•Dornier Do 217A: 8
•Dornier Do 217C: 5
•Dornier Do 217E-0, Dornier Do 217E-1, Dornier Do 217E-2: ~200
•Dornier Do 217E-3: 100
•Dornier Do 217E-4: ~500
•Dornier Do 217J: 157
•Dornier Do 217K, Dornier Do 217M: ~520
•Dornier Do 217N: 207
•Dornier Do 217P: 6
•Dornier Do 217R: 5
The K and M combined (they were really the same plane with different engines) can't surpass the E variants in use or numbers. Initially intended as a bomber, most were (again) used for maritime patrols and anti-shipping use with 2 Fritz-X under the wings and no other bombloads. The M was only a re-engined version with slightly less powerful engines, because the BMW810 used by the K models was in too strong a demand for building Fw190s (yes, same engine!). Otherwise they can be considered the same plane. The performance of the -M wasn't very good even when clean. Soviets tested a captured variant and were impressed with the strong engines but not the performance of the plane. It only managed a maximum of 298mph clean and took over 15 minutes to climb to about 16,000 feet. The K and M series were both reputed to have about the same speed, some 20mph faster than the -E variants.
The J and the N were night fighter variants. Often the Ns were used as test platforms for NJG to figure out what worked and what didn't, then pass on those findings to 110Gs for implementation. Often even when pushed to the limit it had a hard time catching its targets, so weighed down with weapons and fuel that it was rather slow. They were almost entirely removed from the night fighter fleet as soon as 110Gs or Ju88s were available to replace them. They were not satisfactory in that role. Noted ace Rudi Schornert pushed one for all it was worth when he was in NJG 5, and it took him quite a painfully long time to catch a simple B-25 Mitchell. Not surprising since they overloaded the platform too much, and the empty weight alone was often almost 2000kg more than the 217E-2 model!
Keep in mind they could only carry 2500kg internally. The rest of that 8800 bombload was often guided bombs and rocket bombs, which were carried on underwing or under-fuselage (negating use of bomb bays) launch points, and often were many thousands of pounds EACH. So that 8800 lb payload may have simply been 2 guided bombs or Fritz-X's each weighing about 4400lbs (though I have not looked up the specific weights of such systems) or they may simply be theoretical bombload limits. I have read that a lot of them simply carried aux fuel tanks in the internal bomb bays so they had greater range for roaming around looking for targets for their 2 guided rockets. It could very well be the 8800lbs includes 6000lbs worth of gas or some other consideration.
Practically speaking, it would have less of a payload (in conventional bombs) than our Ju88 has. The VAST majority of the duties this plane performed in WW2 do not relate to Aces High. Long range recon? No need for that in this game. Maritime anti-shipping duties? No civilian ships in this game to hunt. Guided rockets and bombs? Not in this game, and probably never will be simply because of how they will be used against carriers in this game. Those that actually dropped bombs in WW2 were relatively few, compared to those that shot rockets or photos.
In short, it's not really a good fit for this game.
P.S. The Do17 was a minor player in the BOB and was already on its way out, being replaced by 217s even at that time. It's not needed at all. We'd need a Ju88A-1 to round out the BOB planeset and some more fighter variants, but we could quite happily get along without ever having a Do17.
-
What is your take on the Ju188, Krusty?
-
What is your take on the Ju188, Krusty?
If it's as incorrect has his take on the Do 217 (we have been there again and again), I wouldn't bother with it.
-
If it's as incorrect has his take on the Do 217 (we have been there again and again), I wouldn't bother with it.
Ah. I am not nearly familiar with the Do217 to gainsay him.
I do disagree with him on the Do17Z. It was a pretty major participant in the Battle of Britain and was still in use for Barbarossa.
-
I'm not incorrect on the 217. It was used as a level bomber, no denying that, but nowhere near the same level as Heinkels and Junkers were. The VAST majority of its uses in WW2 was not for level bombing.
You may have helped me learn a bit about some of the dates and when it was first used -- I was off a bit on some of that a long while back -- but I was NOT wrong about the numbers produced and their uses throughout the war. This is not about introduction dates nor timelines and schedules during the BOB. That is what the earlier discussions were about. This is total production numbers and use during the entire war. Nothing more.
As for the 188, I think it is a far more logical airframe to include in the game, as it was being ramped up to replace the Ju88s as the pre-eminent frontline bomber. It wasn't able to do this, and it never really replaced it, but it was common enough.
-
Quick and dirty list from Wiki:
Units that used the 217:
Nachtjagdgeschwader 1
Nachtjagdgeschwader 2
Nachtjagdgeschwader 4
Nachtjagdgeschwader 5
Nachtjagdgeschwader 6
Nachtjagdgeschwader 100
Kampfgeschwader 2
Kampfgeschwader 6
Kampfgeschwader 40
Kampfgeschwader 100
Kampfgeschwader 200
6 nightfighter squadrons and 5 bomber squadrons. Ignoring the NJG units, since this topic is about the 217 as a BOMBER... Let's dig into that list.
The following units and gruppen used the Do217. I have skipped the gruppen that did NOT use it, as no KG used it exclusively and had other planes in use in various other gruppen.
KG2: KG2 was one of the first to convert to the 217, but even so it didn't last.
- Stab./KG2 had less than 40 of those and lost almost half, and had too many losses in 1942 and were withdrawn to vichy France to simply help "occupy" the country or some such. I think it was a down time to regroup and reorganize, but this is just guessing. They never had more than 20 Do217s at peak in 1942, and after that barely had 3 or 4 for the rest of the war.
- I./KG2 apparently had about 36 early in 1942 at peak, and it drops to the 20s until April 1944 when it disappears, replaced by the Ju188 completely. I cannot find out ANYTHING about I./KG2's particular mission, just that they used them. Given the dates and other gruppen in KG2 it's likely used in mixed level bombing of coastal targets and minelaying/maritime patrol.
- II./KG2 had already migrated to Ju188s in fall 1943, and they continued on in predominantly anti-shipping roles with minelaying and maritime patrols. They carried on the tasks that the 217s had already been doing. In short, mostly maritime patrol. No doubt there was some conventional bombing, but it doesn't seem the main task. At peak they barely had 30 planes, give or take, and in 1943 often much less.I have read the following: After Dieppe, in which KG2 lost 1/4 of its forces, most raids were nuisance raids, on coastal shipping or targets (yes that means level bombing) but only in pairs and under radar to avoid detection. That continued for most of a year, until they re-equipped with 217Ks and Ms in 1943. Now, I don't know if that is correct but seems to be close. That's pretty low usage for most of a year.
- III./KG2 flew them without much impact on the history books until mid 1944 when it was dissolved into a night fighting unit intended to fly Do335s. At peak in 1942 they had 35 planes on hand, but through most of 1943 with the Ks and Ms they often only had numbers in the teens. By summer 1944 they could barely field 10 airframes.
KG6 apparently had some Do217s on hand in the single digits (never more than 10, often less), but was predominantly flying Ju88s and 188s in every major combat I could find reference to. The only references I can find is a single gruppe of KG6 was sent to re-organize for Do217 pathfinders in mid 1943. These single-digit airframes may have been training craft for this purpose. By this time they were mostly flying Ju188s and a mix of late-model Ju88s, but also some Heinkels. So, they sent pilots from 1 gruppe to re-organize. They didn't field the Do217 in combat themselves. That negates this KG on the list of units that used it.
KG40 was the primary maritime patrol unit of the Luftwaffe in WW2. No mystery what their role was. They started out simply as recon, radioing ship locations to wolfpacks (u-boats), and then later attacking them directly. They also fielded other bomber types ranging from He177s to Fw200s, but all in the same anti-shipping and recon role.
- II/KG40 formed in May 1941 to use Do217s, but did so alongside Heinkels as well. They converted to Me410s and He177s after May 1943 give or take, and no 217s were used after that. IV./KG40 MAY have fielded Do217s, but there was a large reorganization and many different gruppen swapped names and designations and others were consolidated to re-form different gruppe. From what I can understand and gather, it seems a number of II./KG40s Do217 gruppen were the same as those in IV./KG40. For any given month in the war (according to ww2.dk, if it is to be believed) II./KG40 never had more than 30 of any 217 variant on hand, and never had more than 40 COMBINED variants (Es and Ks mixed), and IV./KG40 had none at all during any month, so I don't think IV./KG40 used them. Seems to be predominantly maritime patrol using guided missiles, as they also upgraded to He177s using more guided bombs and missiles as the war continued, and a number of Me410s were converted for maritime patrol with surface radar to search for enemy ships.
KG100 photographic evidence shows they used a mix of night fighters and normal variants.
- Stab/KG100 was formed in 1941, but didn't get Do217s until April 1943 give or take. They continued to use these late into 1944 before being totally disbanded as a squadron, but never exceeded single-digit use of the plane.
- Part of II./KG100 was absorbed along with other parts of other squadrons to use He111s and Do217Es along with Hs293 guided missiles specifically. At peak in 1943 it had mid-40s on hand, but by early 1944 they often had only numbers in the teens on a month by month basis. After April 1944 none are shown on the order of battle.
- III./KG100 used Do217Ks and Fritz X guided bomb combinations from mid 1943 until disbandment in 1944, although at the end they only had a single-digits of planes of ANY type by that time.
- IV./KG100 started showing Do217s on roster in June 1943, with some 53 total, but by the next month were down to some 23 or so. After that initial spike they rarely had more than 20 combined from all types and in 1944 all 217s are almost nonexistent on thier roster.
KG200: And finally we come to KG200, which among other things was responsible for dropping special agents behind enemy lines on covery missions, for flying captured allied planes around to unit to teach axis pilots how better to attack and identify them, and also was formed from 2 test squadrons into a single unit and was NOT a frontline bomber unit. They had extensive recon operations (mostly using Ju86s, though). This unit was NOT using the Do217 for any conventional purposes.
So, 6 night fighter squadrons and 5 KG squadrons, of which 2 of those didn't even use it. So that leaves 3 KG squadrons, of which I've broken down the very basic use on a gruppen-by-gruppen basis.
Of those 3 we have KG2, KG4, and KG100, of which KG40 and KG100 appear to be almost exclusively maritime patrol and anti-shipping (with maritime recon thrown in).
That means only KG2 really used them for conventional bombing of cities or targets, and only 3 gruppen (plus a small number in the Stab), of which one of the gruppen was out of action for most of a year.
To sum up, 2 gruppen in 1 Kampfgeschwader used this plane regularly, and even counting the 1 gruppe that was out for most of 1942, they STILL only fielded 100 planes during any given month. After Dieppe, make that 2 gruppen fielding 70 planes. That's at peak. Going by later dates in 1942 you've got some 40 planes between the lot, and less if you get into early 1943!
-
If we need it for the BOB scenario's then why don't we have it already? What we really need is Russian bombers, hell, maybe even some French fighters.
Right now we don't need more hangar queens added. We need plane sets filled out.
Us luft weenies need our He117 :old:
-
Some real production numbers:
Prototypes: 4
A-0/C-0: 9 each
E-1: 94
E-2/E-4: 629 - this is either E-2 to E-4 combined or only E-2 and E-4
E-5: 67 + 34 from upgraded E-4
J-1: 130
K-1: 220
K-2: 50 upgraded K-1
K-3: 40 up-/downgraded M-1
M-1: 438
M-11: 37 upgraded M-1
N-1/N-2: 325
H: 3 rebuilt airframes
P: 4 rebuilt airframes
R: 4 rebuilt airframes
Starting with E-2 were capable of holding 3t of internal bombload (given as 3xSD1000 or 2xSD100 + 2x SD/SC500 with CoG shifting rearwards). Additional fuel tanks are given as 750l, either attached to the rear or forward internal bombs station or to both (rear to be used first).
-
bomber wise I'd like to see the Dornier 217 after the TU-2. Both of these would not be hangar queens in LWMA.
-
bomber wise I'd like to see the Dornier 217 after the TU-2. Both of these would not be hangar queens in LWMA.
Pe-2 and Tu-2 should come before any other bombers and even some fighters.
-
bomber wise I'd like to see the Dornier 217 after the TU-2. Both of these would not be hangar queens in LWMA.
But wouldnt the 188 be a better bomber MA wise?
-
Actually, just spec-wise, the late model 217 would be a bit better than the 188. Especially since it could carry some larger loadouts internally where the 188 must carry all large loadouts externally (more drag, slows the plane down). Historically, I personally think the 188 is a better representation of what was used to drop bombs on targets, though.
EDIT: Although, from what I read, that is only true at max speeds. Apparently the 217 had a rather poor cruising speed and the 188 was much faster at cruise than the 217 at cruise, given similar loadouts, and that even so it used a fraction of the fuel a 217 needed to fly slower. Something about the drag or design of the wing or -- heck I don't know. I just ran across mention of a report about it that summed it up thusly. I haven't read the report myself (I assume it's in German).
-
Which is faster with a large load? I've always been under the impression the 217 was the faster if the two. And that both were significant improvements on the Ju 88.
-
If the Do217 is only slightly faster than the Ju188, I'd rather have the Ju188 for that 20mm top turret.
-
Depends on bomb size. The thing is the 217 could carry some larger bombs internally, where the 188's internal bays were limited to only 50kg sized bombs or aux fuel tanks.
So up to a certain point the 217 would be faster at max speeds, but have worse range and much worse handling (and a lower ceiling). However, a number of loadouts on the 217 required the external ETC racks between the fuselage and the engines, which would have slowed it down as well. So, for Aces High's use the 217 would be better if "clean" externally, since most people run full throttle all the time anyways. Even though it was fast, it was considered woefully underpowered for the loads on the wings and not very responsive in handling or performance. Later models tried to remedy this with longer wings, but it didn't help all that much and in the end the engines were needed elsewhere and the production was cancelled in favor of He177s and Ju188s.
That's only for conventional bomb use, though. It almost seems more were used in combination with the Fritz-X and the Hs293 than were used as conventional bombers. These required external loads and slowed the plane down more, and when these loads were used the internal bays were required to load fuel tanks.
P.S. The 188 reportedly climbed much better than the 217.
P.P.S Karnak: While I believe the 188 had better defensive guns, but the 217 could also have a fixed forward 20mm. Problem is according to its handling and performance you'd almost never get it on target in Aces High and it would be only good against ground targets or HO defense.
-
Do 217 had a rather high wing loading, also poor flying capabilities on one engine. That's the main reason it was phased-out rather early in the NF role.
He 219 suffered from a similar problem - too heavy and wing loading was also somewhat high so poor climbing at full weight.
I have a Do 217 E-1 speed:
Climb/Combat engine power, 14,5 t weight, ~5km alt, ~480 km/h, no flame dampers, flown with metal props, wooden props reduce speed by 10 km/h. 14.5t of weight is with about 1.6t of bombs
The E-2 is about 500kg heavier so expect it to be slower
Speed at sea level with 14.5 t is given as 430 km/h, climb to 3 km with 9 min, 16 min to 5 km
-
217 had a larger bombload but also climbed like a pig and its range was horribly short if it took that large bomb load, most that did carry the Fritz-X and HS-293 problem is we wont' get those in aces high so it makes the Do-217 another hanger queen unless for scenarios and even then not so many scenarios will have it because it really wasn't in very many units.
Standard bomb load for the 217 that I've seen was 4x 500kg on a typical mission load out due to the range, etc.
-
The gist I am getting from this thread is that the bombload on the Do217 is a temptation that would lead to a less effective bomber than the Ju188 would be.
I'll stand by my support for the Ju188A-1.
-
The gist I am getting from this thread is that the bombload on the Do217 is a temptation that would lead to a less effective bomber than the Ju188 would be.
I'll stand by my support for the Ju188A-1.
buuuuuuuuuuuuuut the He177(when everything worked) is still priority :old:
After the beufighter of course
-
buuuuuuuuuuuuuut the He177(when everything worked) is still priority :old:
After the beufighter of course
He-177 is one aircraft I would vote last over everything else. With a ton of Japanese, Russian, British bombers among everything else - The He-111 was just added, the He-177 only brings some LWA action and thats it.
-
buuuuuuuuuuuuuut the He177(when everything worked) is still priority :old:
After the beufighter of course
+1
The obligatory He-177 data:
(http://i376.photobucket.com/albums/oo208/jag888/h2_zps054feb30.png) (http://s376.photobucket.com/user/jag888/media/h2_zps054feb30.png.html)
JAG
-
He177 would need to be perked, and as such would be pretty rare.
Ju188A-1 could be an MA staple.
-
Anything to get people out of their lancs and B-17's.
-
Anything to get people out of their lancs and B-17's.
Why? Those, along with the B-24 and Halifax, were the core heavy bombers of WWII. What justification is there to have a fantasy He177 dominate the actual core WWII heavies other than for the self satisfaction of German fanbois?
-
Was talking about the 188 or 217.
And because they get boring after a while. When you see something besides a lanc or 17, you know he's usually going to maneuver after he loses drones, and actually fight.
-
I don't think either the Ju188 or Do217 have any chance of getting people out of the B-17 or Lancaster. They might get some people out of the B-26 and Ki-67 though.
-
He177 would need to be perked, and as such would be pretty rare.
Ju188A-1 could be an MA staple.
Again karnak?
Have you read anything on the Greif since the last time we discussed this so you can actually put forward an argument for perking? Any numbers?
-
Again karnak?
Have you read anything on the Greif since the last time we discussed this so you can actually put forward an argument for perking? Any numbers?
In aces high we get a perfect aircraft, not the disaster the He-177 was, I've read all the discussions on the He-177 and it would be perked in my opinion because its frankly the jack of all trade when it comes to bombers.
It can defend itself well, good defensive firepower, 6k bomb load, one of the faster bombers at 20k with a bomb load and even faster on egress.
All this for a plane that was a doomed from the beginning, the problems were never fixed and the He-177 never really got to be used to its full potential.
When you line it up with all planes that carry 6k ords or less, the He-177 stands out and would either be 5eny or perked (my best guess).
-
In aces high we get a perfect aircraft, not the disaster the He-177 was, I've read all the discussions on the He-177 and it would be perked in my opinion because its frankly the jack of all trade when it comes to bombers.
It can defend itself well, good defensive firepower, 6k bomb load, one of the faster bombers at 20k with a bomb load and even faster on egress.
All this for a plane that was a doomed from the beginning, the problems were never fixed and the He-177 never really got to be used to its full potential.
When you line it up with all planes that carry 6k ords or less, the He-177 stands out and would either be 5eny or perked (my best guess).
It would be a 5 eny AND perked bird in my opinion. :aok
-
+1, but can we have some Russian stuff to shoot at 1st
-
If the He177A-5 only carries 6k it would not be nearly as problematic. The claims are that it carried 13k. So you'd have a bomber that is faster than any other heavy, carries almost as much as the Lancaster and has decent defenses, though not as strong as the B-17G's and it would likely be a bit fragile compared to the B-17 and Lancaster. That seems to me to be a little to much on the plus side and not enough on the negative side to be uncontrolled.
Now, if it just carries 6.6k (3000kg) then it would probably be ok as a low ENY, free bomber. It would offer tradeoffs instead of outright superiority. Tradeoffs are good as they create choices and, as Sid Meier said, a good game is a series of interesting choices. At 6.6k payload you'd have a bomber that was faster than the B-17, carries slightly more, but isn't as well defended and is much more fragile. Both planes would have advantages over one another. The B-24 would carry more than either, have speed and defenses comparable to the B-17G, but be more fragile and the Lancaster would have good deck speed, comparable speed up to the low 20ks, a massive bombload, extremely weak defenses and durability second to the B-17G. All four heavies would have their place.
-
If the He177A-5 only carries 6k it would not be nearly as problematic. The claims are that it carried 13k. So you'd have a bomber that is faster than any other heavy, carries almost as much as the Lancaster and has decent defenses, though not as strong as the B-17G's and it would likely be a bit fragile compared to the B-17 and Lancaster. That seems to me to be a little to much on the plus side and not enough on the negative side to be uncontrolled.
Now, if it just carries 6.6k (3000kg) then it would probably be ok as a low ENY, free bomber. It would offer tradeoffs instead of outright superiority. Tradeoffs are good as they create choices and, as Sid Meier said, a good game is a series of interesting choices. At 6.6k payload you'd have a bomber that was faster than the B-17, carries slightly more, but isn't as well defended and is much more fragile. Both planes would have advantages over one another. The B-24 would carry more than either, have speed and defenses comparable to the B-17G, but be more fragile and the Lancaster would have good deck speed, comparable speed up to the low 20ks, a massive bombload, extremely weak defenses and durability second to the B-17G. All four heavies would have their place.
A normal bomb load was 6k, the B-17 could carry a huge bombload too but it cut into the range big time, I cant remember if it was 8k or not but I know a normal mission load was 4-4500k ords, maxed it could carry up to 15k I think.
177A-3 would only carry 6.2k on a normal bomb load, now the missiles however Im not sure what 3 would weigh, that would be the weight of it.
-
He177 would need to be perked, and as such would be pretty rare.
Ju188A-1 could be an MA staple.
With that i totally agree. I will vouch for the 188. We should also add in that italian bomber so Arlo will shush :neener:
Anything to get people out of their lancs and B-17's.
If they will just fly lower.
I dont go above 15k for the sake of accurasy, of course when i fly bombers theres only like 20 people on line :rofl
-
If they would just fly at realistic speeds, Zacherof..... :noid
-
In aces high we get a perfect aircraft, not the disaster the He-177 was, I've read all the discussions on the He-177 and it would be perked in my opinion because its frankly the jack of all trade when it comes to bombers.
It can defend itself well, good defensive firepower, 6k bomb load, one of the faster bombers at 20k with a bomb load and even faster on egress.
All this for a plane that was a doomed from the beginning, the problems were never fixed and the He-177 never really got to be used to its full potential.
When you line it up with all planes that carry 6k ords or less, the He-177 stands out and would either be 5eny or perked (my best guess).
The units that managed to operate the type for a while reached 80%+ readiness once spares and training became available. This is what Griehl and Dressel's book on the He-177 concluded, it was the best summary I could find re the Greif:
"A pre-condition of the first use of the He 177 in anger was, naturally, that the crews would follow the operating instructions to the letter. Experience had shown that long-range flights with continuous power-loading were generally accomplished without any problems, but that any overloading of the powerplants could lead to damaged engines or engine fires. But that was not all.
Insufficient time was given over to preparing Luftwaffe bomber units for conversion onto the He 177; a problem that affected organisation and infrastructure on the ground, including personnel and technical support, as much as it did the training of aircrews. There were also instances when He 177s were delivered to units without having first received sufficient flight-testing. There was also a lack of suitable hangar space and parking facilities for large aircraft on operational bases thought to be outside the range of enemy bombers. In addition, there was a lack of good, well-trained workshop personnel and technicians able to maintain and service the new bomber.
In some cases, the complete re-equipment of individual bomber Gruppen within the prescribed time period failed due to low training levels and the lack of instruction for aircrews assigned to the He 177. Apart from that, for a long time there was a dire shortage of maintenance and servicing tools and equipment, not to mention replacement powerplants.
In May 1944 Major Schubert of the Luftwaffengeneralstab and Reichsmarschall Goring's Adjutancy was finally appointed to establish the principal reasons for the delays experienced in re- equipping Luftwaffe bomber units with the He 177. Nothing needs to be added to his report:
Most of the aircrew of units selected for re- equipment with the He 177 were operationally 'tired-out' and relatively few were from front-line units. The necessary personnel consisted primarily of Young, often inexperienced aircrews, and for reasons of capacity their conversion training at operational training and replacement Gruppen could only be completed in relatively few cases. Most of the young pilots had only nine to 12 months of practical flying experience prior to being transferred to such a complicated aircraft as the He 177.
Apart from that, the new operational crews had been trained on the Ju 88, and most had hardly any training in the art of night-flying. The necessary conversion training meant the compulsory withdrawal of operational He 177s for use as trainers, which in turn led to an overload of work for the technical personnel due to the numerous instances of damage suffered by these aircraft as a result of the training activities.
Matters were made all the more difficult by the fact that some of the ground personnel had not been pre-instructed on the He 177. In addition, the vast majority of the technical personnel arrived at their He 177-equipped bomber Gruppen several months after the units had first received their re- equipment orders. By spring 1944, some units were still short of about 50 per cent of engine fitters. Some of the other personnel first set eyes on the He 177 upon arrival at their assigned unit's airfield, their instruction and training on the Heinkel bomber having to start there and then.
The supply of aircraft servicing tools and appliances also did not keep up with deliveries of He 177s. Thus, for instance, the wing attachment cranes needed to facilitate powerplant changes arrived several months after the delivery of the aircraft themselves, and even then they were too few in number. For IV/KG 1 there was no specialised engine-changing equipment at all, and for this reason the unit had to suspend all training activities in mid-April 1944.
The 'engine circulation' (service units - repair depots - service units) also did not flow as it should have done at first, because of a lack of transportation. Neither the supply of new engines nor the return of DB 606/610s in need of repair functioned properly, least of all the supply of exchange powerplants to individual airfields. It wasn't until April 1944 that these shortcomings were effectively overcome, but they were never fully eradicated.
According to Major Schubert, the time expenditure required for the maintenance and servicing of the He 177 was incomparable with that of any other operational aircraft in service with the Luftwaffe. The jacking-up operation to change the main undercarriage tyres alone (which had to done at least twice as frequently as on other aircraft types) lasted some 2fi hours using the prescribed mechanical spindle blocks. Yet by early summer 1944 far too few of these 12-ton spindle blocks recommended by the manufacturer were available to He 177-equipped units.
The layout of the powerplants too did not exactly help attempts to carry out the necessary servicing work. Because of the inaccessibility of the coupled engines their dismounting took considerably longer than similar work on, for example, the Ju 88 or He 111. Due to the low training level of the technicians, a 25-hour control check on the He 177 usually took two, sometimes even three days.
Criticism was also made of the airfields selected to receive the He 177. Apart from Aalborg in Denmark, all of the others were already completely overcrowded, and lacked the potential for dispersal, camouflage and suitable protection of their aircraft against bomb splinters and shrapnel. For this reason low-level attacks by Allied aircraft caused great losses amongst the He 177s parked out in the open from 1944 onwards, especially as the airfields were now constantly within the range of both fighters and bombers. To make matters worse, this vulnerability to attack had a knock-on effect on He 177 training activities, which sometimes had to be reduced by up to per cent because enemy aircraft were on their way and air raid warnings came into force.
No consideration had been given to the fact that the technically complex He 177 required sufficient hangar space for maintenance and repair purposes, especially during the winter months. The delays caused by this shortcoming alone may well have been responsible for the postponement of He 177 operations by some six months to a year.
After the initial operations by I/FKG 50, the He 177 force never exceeded three incompletely- equipped Kampfgeschwader: KG 1, KG 40 and KG 100. This, and the type's inevitably late operational debut, as well as the increasing numerical superiority of Allied air power, prevented any large-scale He 177 operations in the West from 1943 onwards. The losses suffered in attacks on Atlantic convoys as well during the defensive operations against Allied landings, increased steadily and were soon so high that the Luftwaffe command had to suspend all further He 177 attacks.
The increasingly critical fuel shortage and the unavoidable decision of the defence authorities to allocate the highest priority to fighter production undoubtedly also led to the termination of He 177 production. Later, bombers such as the He 274 were granted at most a little extra time for completion.
The claim that simply because of the numerous engine fires the He 177 had become a 'Reichsfeuerzeug' (State Lighter) cannot really be upheld, for not all of the technical defects and difficulties described here were caused exclusively by the coupled Daimler-Benz powerplants, although in many cases there was a strong connection. As so often happens, a multitude of minor causes can have a big cumulative effect that not infrequently results in the sad loss of an aircraft and its aircrew.
In truth, the blinkered technocrats of the RLM, without any feeling for, or real understanding of, the protracted effort involved in the development of a modern bomber, carried as much responsibility as some First World War fighter pilots who had gained rank and prominence after 1933, but were completely overwhelmed by modern technology on numerous occasions.
Last but not least, the main portion of blame should probably be ascribed to the advocates of an unrealistic doctrine of air warfare, and who were astutely appraised and judged quite early on by the famous Heinkel designer Siegfried Günter:
'They really are somewhat crazy with their dive- bombing. It has already become like a mania!' "
Most of the issues were fixed but it was never a stellar aircraft, which is why it was to be replaced by the He-177B, its 4-engine version. Had they done that in 1940 they could have had a far better aircraft and available when it could have meant something.
In then end, it was little different from the B29.
-
A normal bomb load was 6k, the B-17 could carry a huge bombload too but it cut into the range big time, I cant remember if it was 8k or not but I know a normal mission load was 4-4500k ords, maxed it could carry up to 15k I think.
177A-3 would only carry 6.2k on a normal bomb load, now the missiles however Im not sure what 3 would weigh, that would be the weight of it.
He-177s bombed London from fields on Germany carrying 5600Kg of bombs, you can do the conversion to medieval.
(http://i376.photobucket.com/albums/oo208/jag888/Steinbock_zps24e2c2fd.png) (http://s376.photobucket.com/user/jag888/media/Steinbock_zps24e2c2fd.png.html)
And those were A3s.
-
He-177s bombed London from fields on Germany carrying 5600Kg of bombs, you can do the conversion to medieval.
(http://i376.photobucket.com/albums/oo208/jag888/Steinbock_zps24e2c2fd.png) (http://s376.photobucket.com/user/jag888/media/Steinbock_zps24e2c2fd.png.html)
And those were A3s.
You didn't read anything I posted did you? If you bothered to read up on the He-177-a3 you'd know the typical bomb load of a sortie (averaging all the A3 sorties) was 6.2k of ords. Just because one sortie flew with 12,000lbs of bombs (I have no clue if a 177 even flew with this much ords) doesn't mean every exact 177 flew with 12k ords every sortie.
You can do the research on that.
-
At 5600kg it would need to be perked, no ifs, ands or buts. Unperked and it would be so far above every other free heavy bomber that there'd be little reason to use any other heavy except for personal reasons, the same as somebody picking a P-40 now.
You can say "Sure, but the P-40 doesn't get things perked to protect it being a viable choice." and you'd be right, but you'd also be ignoring the larger picture. There any many competitive fighters which are not perked, Bf109G-14, Bf109K-4, Fw190D-9, F4U-1, F4U-1A, F4U-1D, F6F-5, Ki-84-Ia, La-5FN, La-7, N1K2-J, P-38J, P-38L, P-47M, P-47N, P-51B, P-51D, Spitfire Mk VIII, Spitfire Mk XIV, Spitfire Mk XVI, Ta152H-1, Typhoon Mk I, Yak-3 and Yak-9U are all within the ballpark.
In comparison there are only three unperked heavy bombers, each offering tradeoffs when measured against each other, the B-17G, B-24J and Lancaster Mk III. The He177A-5 would make it four, and if it doesn't overwhelm the other three that would be great as more choices is better, but if it does overwhelm the others, or even just two of them, it would be bad as it would reduce choice. If it has a 3000-3500kg bomb load then it would probably offer a genuine fourth choice, but much more than that and it starts encroaching on the B-24J and Lancaster Mk III still being genuine choices. 5600kgs and I suspect that even the B-17G might not offer enough to be a genuine choice anymore.
When I say "genuine choice" I mean something that somebody who was completely neutral about the four bombers might pick for one sortie or another based on the given sortie profile. Somebody who doesn't care at all about the USAAF, RAF or Luftwaffe fanboi rivalry in the game, who doesn't care about the way each plane looks and just wants the best plane for the job at hand. Right now, depending on the situation, the answer can be the B-17G, or it can be the B-24J and it can be the Lancaster Mk III. It would be very nice to see the He177A-5 added to that list. It would be unfortunate to see the He177A-5 remove one or more of them from the list. One would be tolerable, more would not.
I'd like to see the H8K2 with its 2000kgs of bombs, five 20mm cannons defending and high durability, fast climb added to the list too.
-
You didn't read anything I posted did you? If you bothered to read up on the He-177-a3 you'd know the typical bomb load of a sortie (averaging all the A3 sorties) was 6.2k of ords. Just because one sortie flew with 12,000lbs of bombs (I have no clue if a 177 even flew with this much ords) doesn't mean every exact 177 flew with 12k ords every sortie.
You can do the research on that.
Funny you say that, had you bothered to read on the A-3 and their Steinbock missions you would know that most were undertaken by barely trained personnel flying mostly untested aircraft which affected both reliability and performance. Check Price and you will learn that the pilots more familiar with the aircraft could and did use 2x1800Kg and 2x1000Kg against London, while the greener pilots were limited to 4x1000Kg loads.
Now, be so kind as to point out were I claimed that EVERY He-177 flew with that load? The example I gave only proved that the He-177 COULD and DID fly with such a load in that particular mission for that particular distance, proving it was capable of doing so which would be the relevant bit of info for the game.
In any case, the most telling part of your post is when you declare to not have a clue.
-
At 5600kg it would need to be perked, no ifs, ands or buts. Unperked and it would be so far above every other free heavy bomber that there'd be little reason to use any other heavy except for personal reasons, the same as somebody picking a P-40 now.
You can say "Sure, but the P-40 doesn't get things perked to protect it being a viable choice." and you'd be right, but you'd also be ignoring the larger picture. There any many competitive fighters which are not perked, Bf109G-14, Bf109K-4, Fw190D-9, F4U-1, F4U-1A, F4U-1D, F6F-5, Ki-84-Ia, La-5FN, La-7, N1K2-J, P-38J, P-38L, P-47M, P-47N, P-51B, P-51D, Spitfire Mk VIII, Spitfire Mk XIV, Spitfire Mk XVI, Ta152H-1, Typhoon Mk I, Yak-3 and Yak-9U are all within the ballpark.
In comparison there are only three unperked heavy bombers, each offering tradeoffs when measured against each other, the B-17G, B-24J and Lancaster Mk III. The He177A-5 would make it four, and if it doesn't overwhelm the other three that would be great as more choices is better, but if it does overwhelm the others, or even just two of them, it would be bad as it would reduce choice. If it has a 3000-3500kg bomb load then it would probably offer a genuine fourth choice, but much more than that and it starts encroaching on the B-24J and Lancaster Mk III still being genuine choices. 5600kgs and I suspect that even the B-17G might not offer enough to be a genuine choice anymore.
When I say "genuine choice" I mean something that somebody who was completely neutral about the four bombers might pick for one sortie or another based on the given sortie profile. Somebody who doesn't care at all about the USAAF, RAF or Luftwaffe fanboi rivalry in the game, who doesn't care about the way each plane looks and just wants the best plane for the job at hand. Right now, depending on the situation, the answer can be the B-17G, or it can be the B-24J and it can be the Lancaster Mk III. It would be very nice to see the He177A-5 added to that list. It would be unfortunate to see the He177A-5 remove one or more of them from the list. One would be tolerable, more would not.
I'd like to see the H8K2 with its 2000kgs of bombs, five 20mm cannons defending and high durability, fast climb added to the list too.
The US bombers are far better defended, that would still be their forte. Now the Lanc:
- It still had a better range/load rate than the Greif.
Frontal defense: The Greif has a 20mm on the low position with a very limited field of fire, and only a single 7,92mm to complement that on the top. Its firepower vs dead angles.
Top: Greif had 3x13mm in 2 turrets.
Bottom: The Greif has a single 13mm MG.
Tail: I would take the 2x13mm turret of the Lanc over the Greif casemate 20mm, it has just a very narrow field of fire that can be easily avoided.
On top of that the vulnerability of the Greif engines would have to be modeled, a couple hits and 50% of the power is gone, and the Greif cant fly on a single engine... at least the A3 IIRC. It would be a very vulnerable aircraft in spite of its strong airframe.
(http://i376.photobucket.com/albums/oo208/jag888/Gunangles.jpg) (http://s376.photobucket.com/user/jag888/media/Gunangles.jpg.html)
-
Now, be so kind as to point out were I claimed that EVERY He-177 flew with that load? The example I gave only proved that the He-177 COULD and DID fly with such a load in that particular mission for that particular distance, proving it was capable of doing so which would be the relevant bit of info for the game.
Here's something from aIRDOC He-177 by manfred griehl:
"Due to massive engine problems, and I.KG 100 losing 15 aircraft on three missions over england alone, there were almost as many losses due to the susceptible engine problems as there were to pilot error and now mostly inexperienced crews, not to mention the losses to enemy action". I Gruppe KG100 has been formed from teh I./KG 4 with 14 He 177A-3. After heavy losses during the Battle of France the numbers available to KG 100 was reduced to 36. A large part of the Geschwader and its HQ units were disbanded with only a single Gruppe Active.
However the aircraft were exempted from daily operational and collected for a large force employment against allied ships and land targets but this operation never happened.
So 80% of the aircraft didn't even make it to the target, turned back due to excessive weight - engine failure, inexperienced crews and susceptible engine problems and its ok?
The B-29 is one thing, the He-177 was plagued its entire life span and couldn't even get 5 planes to a target area without problems.
I have no clue, sure whatever insult you want to throw around - fact is the me-163 was safer getting a pilot in the air and land then the He-177 was for a crew to fly in.
Sad fact is the HE-177 will be added in Aces high, If we had the Me-163 then the He-177 deserves its place along side of it.
-
I have no clue, sure whatever insult you want to throw around - fact is the me-163 was safer getting a pilot in the air and land then the He-177 was for a crew to fly in.
You wouldn't make this statement if you'd have any knowledge about the Me 163 and it's dangerous behaviours and even more dangerous fuel.
-
The US bombers are far better defended, that would still be their forte.
Better, yes, but not that much and the most important position favors the Greif, particularly given its higher speed. The B-24J is also highly vulnerable to damage and the B-17G's bomb load is lighter than some medium bombers. The single MG151/20 offers as much, or more, firepower than the dual .50s, and applies it in a more concentrated manner.
Now the Lanc:
- It still had a better range/load rate than the Greif.
Range is irrelevant as there is no target in AH that the He177A-5 wouldn't be able to hit. Not sure if the load rate would matter or not, but given the Lancaster's slower speed and much weaker defenses I can't see it being much of an issue.
Frontal defense: The Greif has a 20mm on the low position with a very limited field of fire, and only a single 7,92mm to complement that on the top. Its firepower vs dead angles.
Frontal defense in AH is mostly moot as attacks rarely come from that angle. The Lancaster's two .303s are a waste of weight and drag.
Top: Greif had 3x13mm in 2 turrets.
Much better than the two .303s on the Lanc. While the 13mm MG131 is not as good as the Browning .50, it is far, far superior to the Browning .303.
Bottom: The Greif has a single 13mm MG.
That won't likely down many fighters, but it is superior to the Lancaster's zero guns on the bottom.
Tail: I would take the 2x13mm turret of the Lanc over the Greif casemate 20mm, it has just a very narrow field of fire that can be easily avoided.
The pitiful amount of ammo significantly neuters the Lancaster's dual .50 option and again, while the Lancaster's turret design is superior, the Greif's greater speed will help it to drag fighters into its 20mm cone of coverage. How much ammo did it carry for the tail gun?
On top of that the vulnerability of the Greif engines would have to be modeled, a couple hits and 50% of the power is gone, and the Greif cant fly on a single engine... at least the A3 IIRC. It would be a very vulnerable aircraft in spite of its strong airframe.
Yes, it would be more fragile, but does that one weakness make up for being superior, or very superior, in every other category?
If the He177A-5 were added with a 5600kg payload I would expect to see it almost entirely replace the Lancaster and, at the least, significantly reduce the usage of the B-24J.
-
You wouldn't make this statement if you'd have any knowledge about the Me 163 and it's dangerous behaviours and even more dangerous fuel.
They should of researched better fuel then one which spontaneously explodes komets just from fuel vapors. Although Eric brown seemed to enjoy the aircraft even though the german ground crew were smarter then him.
-
Here's something from aIRDOC He-177 by manfred griehl:
"Due to massive engine problems, and I.KG 100 losing 15 aircraft on three missions over england alone, there were almost as many losses due to the susceptible engine problems as there were to pilot error and now mostly inexperienced crews, not to mention the losses to enemy action". I Gruppe KG100 has been formed from teh I./KG 4 with 14 He 177A-3. After heavy losses during the Battle of France the numbers available to KG 100 was reduced to 36. A large part of the Geschwader and its HQ units were disbanded with only a single Gruppe Active.
However the aircraft were exempted from daily operational and collected for a large force employment against allied ships and land targets but this operation never happened.
So 80% of the aircraft didn't even make it to the target, turned back due to excessive weight - engine failure, inexperienced crews and susceptible engine problems and its ok?
The B-29 is one thing, the He-177 was plagued its entire life span and couldn't even get 5 planes to a target area without problems.
I have no clue, sure whatever insult you want to throw around - fact is the me-163 was safer getting a pilot in the air and land then the He-177 was for a crew to fly in.
Sad fact is the HE-177 will be added in Aces high, If we had the Me-163 then the He-177 deserves its place along side of it.
Oh... because if an aircraft hastily thrown into service using inexperienced aircrew, undertrained ground crews and untested aircraft does bad it means it ALWAYS did as bad, right? And also means that the subsequent A5 model was just as bad as well, right?
Lets see, form Griehl:
"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."
Here is the first hint for many of the problems. More:
"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 Kehl-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 / KG 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."
Now from Price:
"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."
And:
"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."
This last bit was regarding the KG1 missions over Russia during the summer of 1944, where they had up to 87 He-177 bombing a single target. So not even 5 aircraft, huh?
By September 1944 II/KG100 had a 90% serviceability rate with their A5s, a far cry for previous months, but by then lack of fuel meant the bomber groups were grounded.
And where in your quote is excessive weight mentioned? Or is that a notion that you just tried to slip through with no factual support...
-
Better, yes, but not that much and the most important position favors the Greif, particularly given its higher speed. The B-24J is also highly vulnerable to damage and the B-17G's bomb load is lighter than some medium bombers. The single MG151/20 offers as much, or more, firepower than the dual .50s, and applies it in a more concentrated manner.
I am very interested on hearing about the He-177s superior speed, please quote speed, height and weight.
Range is irrelevant as there is no target in AH that the He177A-5 wouldn't be able to hit. Not sure if the load rate would matter or not, but given the Lancaster's slower speed and much weaker defenses I can't see it being much of an issue.
Maybe, but take into account load configuration, 5600Kg can be reached only through 2x1800 and 2x1000Kg bomb load, if you want a more flexible load then external hard points would have to be used or limit the aircraft to only 6x500Kg, 48x70Kg, 12x250Kg or at best 4x1200Kg, but I have never seen the last load quoted anywhere (6x1000Kg is possible only using armour piercing bombs which are smaller than their HE equivalents). Bomb bay configuration would present a major issue with the Greif, so unless you use that particular config the aircraft would carry 4000Kg and lower loads.
Frontal defense in AH is mostly moot as attacks rarely come from that angle. The Lancaster's two .303s are a waste of weight and drag.
Much better than the two .303s on the Lanc. While the 13mm MG131 is not as good as the Browning .50, it is far, far superior to the Browning .303.
That won't likely down many fighters, but it is superior to the Lancaster's zero guns on the bottom.
Top and low defense is certainly far better and beyond discussion.
The pitiful amount of ammo significantly neuters the Lancaster's dual .50 option and again, while the Lancaster's turret design is superior, the Greif's greater speed will help it to drag fighters into its 20mm cone of coverage. How much ammo did it carry for the tail gun?
800 rounds, but take a look again at the angles of the 20mm, you have to be a moron to get into it. And what was the loaded speed of the Greif again?
Yes, it would be more fragile, but does that one weakness make up for being superior, or very superior, in every other category?
If the He177A-5 were added with a 5600kg payload I would expect to see it almost entirely replace the Lancaster and, at the least, significantly reduce the usage of the B-24J.
-
Perhaps I recalled wrong, but I was under the impression that its loaded speed was in the 320ish range at 20k, 30-40mph faster than the Lancaster.
-
Perhaps I recalled wrong, but I was under the impression that its loaded speed was in the 320ish range at 20k, 30-40mph faster than the Lancaster.
(http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab56/Misconduc/he177.png)
(http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab56/Misconduc/he177-1.png)
-
(http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab56/Misconduc/he177.png)
(http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab56/Misconduc/he177-1.png)
So 310mph or 341mph, depending on what those lines mean.
261 or 277mph on the deck is also far, far faster than any of the free heavies in AH.
-
So 310mph or 341mph, depending on what those lines mean.
261 or 277mph on the deck is also far, far faster than any of the free heavies in AH.
those numbers come direct from the Heinkel factories, which sounds correct considering the normal procedure of a He-177 was to attack from 22k and dive away at speeds of 370mph to 400.
-
Can anyone provide speed charts of the Do 217 and the Ju188?
I'm curious as to their speed curves and how they perform at low altitude. That really seems to be the most important thing in AH.
-
So 310mph or 341mph, depending on what those lines mean.
261 or 277mph on the deck is also far, far faster than any of the free heavies in AH.
Yeah nice numbers arent they?
Those are from Heinkel in 1942. Problem is this:
(http://i376.photobucket.com/albums/oo208/jag888/h2_zps054feb30.png) (http://s376.photobucket.com/user/jag888/media/h2_zps054feb30.png.html)
These are the 1944 Luftwaffe numbers for the A3 and A5 with flame dampers in actual service, and unless I am reading it wrong it indicates 480Km/h at 6000m and only at 26t (3t of bombs), far form the 31t max of the type. For the A3 loaded with 2 missiles and weight maxed at 31t it does not indicate max speed, only max cruise of 410Km/h at 5000m, which is 35Km/h slower than at 26t with the same ordnance. One could venture a guess and claim 440Km/h as the max speed for the He-177A-3 fully loaded. It is a guess only, but I doubt it or the A5 were far off that mark.
Now, in short range "A" configuration, the Greif would likely not be at max weight and simply trade 2t of fuel and its volume of the "B" configuration (as illustrated in the chart) for its equivalent bomb capacity and keep its 480Km/h max.
-
Yeah nice numbers arent they?
Those are from Heinkel in 1942. Problem is this:
One could venture a guess and claim 440Km/h as the max speed for the He-177A-3 fully loaded. It is a guess only, but I doubt it or the A5 were far off that mark.
Now, in short range "A" configuration, the Greif would likely not be at max weight and simply trade 2t of fuel and its volume of the "B" configuration (as illustrated in the chart) for its equivalent bomb capacity and keep its 480Km/h max.
You are assuming the A5 is going to be added in Aces High, I have 9 manuals dating 1941-1944 for the A3 which if anything was added in aces high it would be the 177-A3.
-
These are the 1944 Luftwaffe numbers for the A3 and A5 with flame dampers in actual service,
I read somewhere He-177s did not fly night time attacks during Operation Steinbock because they didn't have Flame Dampers - if this is true (I'd have to look at Airdoc or one of the other books to show this was the case) I do recall this being said more then once regarding Steinbock.
-
You are assuming the A5 is going to be added in Aces High, I have 9 manuals dating 1941-1944 for the A3 which if anything was added in aces high it would be the 177-A3.
Heh, since both models used the same engine and the A5 actually a derated DB610 at that, please be so kind as to indicate what the performance difference would be since most changes between the A3 and 5 were intended to improve reliability and ruggedness than anything else...
Good for you and your manuals, funny thing you declined to contest the data and chose to provide us with this intriguing piece of information...
I read somewhere He-177s did not fly night time attacks during Operation Steinbock because they didn't have Flame Dampers - if this is true (I'd have to look at Airdoc or one of the other books to show this was the case) I do recall this being said more then once regarding Steinbock.
I see you remain determined to prove how little you know about the aircraft, its operational life or its performance. Impressive.
In any case I look forward to hearing about these day time Steinbock attacks.
-
A further note on the Greifs guns, it changed a lot as with many German aircraft. In the document provided you can see the A5s with MG131s on BOTH frontal positions and I understand it was common for the Kehl//missile equipped aircraft to move the MG151/20 to the top position in order to give it a better field of fire, leaving the bottom vacant.
There were alsp aircraft with a 2xMG131 tailposition.