Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: alpini13 on October 17, 2013, 12:50:39 PM
-
USED BY THE ITALIANS AND GERMANS AND OTHER AXIS NATIONS THROUGHOUT THE WAR.many different camo scemes used wartime,used for axis supply and paratroop jumps and early on was used as a bomber. a good addition to the axis plane set as it fills many roles including.....italian bomber,italian and german troop and supply transport,africa scenario axis bomber,malta scenario axis bomber,main arena axis supply and troops(unarmed).huge perk point builder in the bomber catagory.
simply have it armed when bombs are the payload,and unarmed when troops or supply is the payload
General characteristics
Crew: 4
Capacity: 40 troops
Length: 22.9 m (75 ft 1½ in)
Wingspan: 29.68 m (97 ft 4½ in)
Height: 6.0 m (19 ft 8.25 in)
Wing area: 118.6 m² (1,276.64 ft²)
Empty weight: 10,550 kg (bomber 11,200 kg) (23,259 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 18,020 kg (bomber 18,410 kg) (39,727 lb)
Powerplant: 3 × Alfa Romeo 128 RC.21 9-cylinder radial engines, 708 kW (950 hp) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 347 km/h (187 kn, 212 mph)
Cruise speed: 250 km/h (135 kn, 125 mph) at 3,000 m (9,840 ft)
Stall speed: 110 km/h (59 kn, 68 mph)
Range: 2,100 km (1,134 nmi, 1,864 mi)
Service ceiling: 6,000 m (19,685 ft)
Armament
1 × 12.7 mm (.5 in) Scotti machine gun in dorsal turret
3 × 7.7 mm (.303 in) Breda-SAFAT machine guns in ventral and lateral positions
4,000 kg (8,818 lb) bombload
(http://savoia_Marchetti_SM82_Canguru)
-
somebody add some color pics of camo skins,please
-
Again, I think it a bad idea. The bomber needed for the Italian planeset is the SM.79-II. The Axis transport, in addition to the L2D that we have, should be the Ju52.
-
gotta agree with Karnak on this one (as much as it pains me :D)
here are some pics of the sm.82 canguro...
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iwdZHra-Qsc/Tzsjn1T6yTI/AAAAAAAAEfY/kRdVg-msv9w/s320/SM.82+Canguro+4.jpg)
(http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/627877-1/S_82-FEZZAN)
(http://stormomagazine.com/Kits/Italeri/RA/ITA1270_2_640.jpg)
-
yes,good point, but with one plane,you could fulfill both of the roles you talked about....remember, the sm-79 was a great torpedo bomber and attack aircraft......in the med/africa area.....from 1940-43. it is not a troop transport. and so its usefulness would be limited to the early arenas and a couple scenario's.......the sm-82 would be far more flexible and useful in game. the ju-52 would be a goos traditional transport for the axis.but only a transport...and a slower than the c47 currently in game transport at that, the sm-82 would be about as fast as the c-47,and so BOTH would be used in main arena,and the ju-52 would not be a bomber in game.......and so, with a long list of aircraft that people want to have in game.....and a limited number being added per year. the sm-82 would be the most BANG for the buck,and add to the italian plane set. the sm-82 was used by the italians before 1943,and both italian airforces after 1943(1943-45)and the germans,and other axis nations.it was used in every axis european theater.the sm-79 was not.
-
Trying to combine them, which it won't as we'd still need the Ju52, isn't worth losing the SM.79-II over. The odds of getting two Italian bombers is practically nil The Italians are a sideshow compared to the Russians for which we still haven't gotten a bomber. That being the case I think that we ought to put all efforts behind the SM.79-II, a far more capable bomber than the SM.82.
The SM.82 works as well for the Germans as does the L2D. A substitute is a substitute and that means we'd still need the Ju52.
-
why would we need a ju-52 now...the sm-82 would fullfill the role,was used in real life and would also fullfill other roles as well.............as for the russian planes set. yes they need a bomber of sorts....but they already have 8 great planes and just recently had two added to the game, the italians have two aircraft..total. and there are countries not even represented in the game. we need some of those aircraft as well. think about this..the allies have late war bombers..the axis dosent,and the axis dosent have a troop transport. the japanese have only early war dive and torpedo aircraft,the allies have later war dive and torpedo aircraft.the british dont have any of their own tanks..just the converted sherman firefly...shouldnt they have a matlida,crusader,churchill,cromwell,or challenger tank to represent them? there are many things needed,but show me another candidate that will fullfill as many roles as the sm-82
-
The Ju-52 and SM-79 are both more iconic. The Junkers would be used in every European event that features German paratroopers. The SM-79 would be used in every Med event that features Italian bombers and torpedo bombers.
-
considering the production dates and bomb capacity, it would make a suitable substitute (albeit slower) for the sm.79 and a faster substitute for the ju-52...we use plenty of substituted aircraft now, this one wouldn't be a far stretch for any event the other 2 could be used in.
-
I don't think bomb capacity* (in a very limited role) trumps theaters of operation.
SM-82 (1939-1944): The Med, Africa
JU-52 (1935-45): The Med, Africa, Western Europe, Eastern Europe
*Ju-52 3,300 lb bomb-load versus SM-82 8,818 lb (utilized less than half as often).
A lot more Ju-52s were built (4,845) and shot down than SM-82s (about 720). :D
-
oh come on Arlo, admit it, you just want those long slender...torpedoes. :lol :bolt:
since the sm82 was primarily a transport plane, i wonder how it converted to a bomber...did the bombardier lay on the floor looking through a window and pull a rope to drop the bombs?
(http://www.marsinvestigations.net/images/cr/garfield.jpg)
-
since the sm82 was primarily a transport plane, i wonder how it converted to a bomber...did the bombardier lay on the floor looking through a window and pull a rope to drop the bombs?
(http://imageshack.us/a/img94/8805/crtr.png)
-
oh come on Arlo, admit it, you just want those long slender...torpedoes. :lol :bolt:
since the sm82 was primarily a transport plane, i wonder how it converted to a bomber...did the bombardier lay on the floor looking through a window and pull a rope to drop the bombs?
(http://www.marsinvestigations.net/images/cr/garfield.jpg)
Which means we need it even less. The Ju52 is clearly the next transport, if any, that should be added. The SM.79-II is clearly the Italian bomber that should be added.
That leaves the SM.82 standing when both chairs have been sat in.
-
its funny one guy mentioned numbers of aircraft built...the ta-152 only had about 70 produced,the p-47m had about 130 produced,and the f4u-4 and f4u-c were also made in very limited number...BUT WE HAVE THEM.so numbers as an argument,dosent work. and remember the sm-82 was used in russia,greece,yugoslavia,romania as well, not just the med/africa. and so with numbers as an argument,we can throw that out the window. look at usefulness. yes the j-52 is a more iconic plane....but the sm-82 is better at this role. and the sm-79 is a more iconic plane. but the sm-82 would fulfill this role as an added benifit..not just that role, as the other two are limited in, neither the ju-52 or sm-79 can do both.....the sm-82 CAN DO BOTH. so lets review. any scenario or role the sm-79 and ju-52 can do in any area,can be done by the addition of one plane instead of two...the sm-82. and in some cases the sm-82 can do it better,it was a real aircraft,used by the axis in numbers and had a good war record. and with the addition of this one aircraft. it can save us time and effort by adding one plane instead of two.
-
Just to give the queen some use:
He 111 H-20/R1, or the H-23. 10-6 Fallschirmjägers.
(http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/1800/fallschirmjager3nz3.jpg)
After all, thanks to this aircraft odds of seeing a German multiengine aircraft in the near future are slim, might as well give it some purpose.
-
.
-
its funny one guy mentioned numbers of aircraft built...the ta-152 only had about 70 produced,the p-47m had about 130 produced,and the f4u-4 and f4u-c were also made in very limited number...BUT WE HAVE THEM.so numbers as an argument,dosent work.
Unlike all of those the SM.82 would require 100% original artwork for a multi-engine, multi-station aircraft.
I don't see anybody here saying the SM.82 is inappropriate to add, simply that there are much better choices for the time investment from HTC.
I'd love to see the SM.79-II show up on the front page of the site.
-
you suck Karnak...but i like the idea of the sm.79-II so no argument about that choice. :devil
-
i would be happy to see the paras option on the he 111, would make it simple to have an axis transport fast. other aircraft i think we need, russsian bomber,late german bomber,late japanese dive bomb and torpedo plane, british tanks,italian aircraft,french aircraft, candidates? re-2005,g-55,pe-2,he-177,he-217,do219,
-
Just to give the queen some use:
He 111 H-20/R1, or the H-23. 10-6 Fallschirmjägers.
(http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/1800/fallschirmjager3nz3.jpg)
After all, thanks to this aircraft odds of seeing a German multiengine aircraft in the near future are slim, might as well give it some purpose.
:airplane: I vote for one of these:
(http://i1346.photobucket.com/albums/p684/earl1937/lufthansaju52_zpsaf4856f1.jpg)
And wouldn't it be neat to fly this cockpit?
(http://i1346.photobucket.com/albums/p684/earl1937/ju52instrumentpanel_zps3c39a24a.jpg)
-
:airplane: I vote for one of these:
(http://i1346.photobucket.com/albums/p684/earl1937/lufthansaju52_zpsaf4856f1.jpg)
And wouldn't it be neat to fly this cockpit?
(http://i1346.photobucket.com/albums/p684/earl1937/ju52instrumentpanel_zps3c39a24a.jpg)
It is nice to see that the Ecuadorian Annie is still flying, but for a quicker and easier solution a He-111 version would fit nicely and actually perform better, and it would give the aircraft more use as well. Then HTs efforts could be aimed at other countries, maybe a Pe-8? With a big Russian bomber in maybe people would stop bickering about an eventual He-177.
-
The problem with the He111 being available as a transport in the MA is that it eliminates the C-47 as a reasonable choice. The He111 is faster, tougher and armed. I'd have no problem with the option being added for possible use in scenarios or the AvA if it were disabled in the MA.
The Ju52 and SM.82 offer a choice compared to the C-47A, that of trading speed for guns. The Ju52 is a starker choice as the speed differential is more than twice that of the SM.82 compared to the C-47A.
-
and thats why i think the sm-82 is THE choice, it is comparable to the c-47,and so both would be used,and the sm-82 has other added beneifits.
-
and thats why i think the sm-82 is THE choice, it is comparable to the c-47,and so both would be used,and the sm-82 has other added beneifits.
Conversely it is why I think the Ju52 is the better choice as it creates a more distinct choice. The SM.82 is only slightly slower than the C-47 while being armed.
However the biggest problem is that the SM.82 is not iconic in that role. The two iconic troop transports from WWII are the C-47 and the Ju52. The Ju52 covers troop transports for Germany, Italy and Finland and the C-47 covers troop transports for the USA, UK, USSR, Japan and Finland.
-
:airplane: I vote for one of these:
(http://i1346.photobucket.com/albums/p684/earl1937/lufthansaju52_zpsaf4856f1.jpg)
And wouldn't it be neat to fly this cockpit?
(http://i1346.photobucket.com/albums/p684/earl1937/ju52instrumentpanel_zps3c39a24a.jpg)
:airplane: I still would like to know what those "water faucet" handles on the lower ride side of instrument panel are for?
-
The problem with the He111 being available as a transport in the MA is that it eliminates the C-47 as a reasonable choice. The He111 is faster, tougher and armed. I'd have no problem with the option being added for possible use in scenarios or the AvA if it were disabled in the MA.
The Ju52 and SM.82 offer a choice compared to the C-47A, that of trading speed for guns. The Ju52 is a starker choice as the speed differential is more than twice that of the SM.82 compared to the C-47A.
The problem with that outlook is that it could be said or argued against adding ANY new aircraft...
The Ju-52 was the iconic para dropper of the war, but I wouldnt mind using the He-111 until HT comes around to making one, at least that way the He-111 woulndt be such a waste of a German bomber slot.
To think that we got it instead of a Ju-188, Do-217 or He-177 makes me mad... :furious
-
The problem with that outlook is that it could be said or argued against adding ANY new aircraft...
The uncontrolled addition of any aircraft that is better in every way than the existing aircraft filling that role, yes. Controlled addition, no.
The Ju-52 was the iconic para dropper of the war, but I wouldnt mind using the He-111 until HT comes around to making one, at least that way the He-111 woulndt be such a waste of a German bomber slot.
To think that we got it instead of a Ju-188, Do-217 or He-177 makes me mad... :furious
Ju52 and C-47. D-Day and Market Garden cement the C-47's place as an iconic paratroop carrier as much as Crete and the invasion of France do so for the Ju52.
I think the Ju52 and C-47 would make a great pair as they offer a choice for the same reason the B-17G and Lancaster made a great pair. To get something you have to give up something.
I understand the choice to model the He111 as there was much clamoring for it. I personally would have rather seen the Ju188 added. The Do217 seems the weakest of the three you mentioned as far as MA potential goes. The He177 has a huge number of question marks hanging over it as the extensive threads on it have it being anywhere from 300 to 350mph and carrying from ~7,000lbs to ~13,500lbs, all of which make it hard to predict exactly how HTC would model it.
On the subject of Italian stuff, the blunt fact is that the Italians were completely out of their league in WWII, a chihuahua that picked a fight with three mastiffs. This makes arguing for an extensive Italian unit list hard to do when there are still significant holes in the unit lists of the five big boys. For my part if the SM.79-II and C.200 were added I'd consider the Italian set satisfactory for the vast majority of scenarios and adding the CR.42 and G.55 to those would effectively call it done.
-
The uncontrolled addition of any aircraft that is better in every way than the existing aircraft filling that role, yes. Controlled addition, no.
The aircraft is ALREADY in the game, this is just one variant whose introduction would bring some use to an otherwise hangar queen.
Ju52 and C-47. D-Day and Market Garden cement the C-47's place as an iconic paratroop carrier as much as Crete and the invasion of France do so for the Ju52.
I think the Ju52 and C-47 would make a great pair as they offer a choice for the same reason the B-17G and Lancaster made a great pair. To get something you have to give up something.
Axis side, obviously...
I understand the choice to model the He111 as there was much clamoring for it.
Just for the BoB scenario, which was adequately covered by the Ju-88A4 which was not very different from the A1s and A5s of the early BoB, beyond that you got an aircraft useless for the MA when the LW has no mid or late bomber in the roster. Have it drop paras and it would at least get some use, if that is bad for the C-47 so be it.
I personally would have rather seen the Ju188 added. The Do217 seems the weakest of the three you mentioned as far as MA potential goes.
The 188 is sexier and better armed, the 217 is slightly faster and has a better carrying capacity (internal AND external). It is a tough choice, but if we already have a Ju-88...
The He177 has a huge number of question marks hanging over it as the extensive threads on it have it being anywhere from 300 to 350mph and carrying from ~7,000lbs to ~13,500lbs, all of which make it hard to predict exactly how HTC would model it.
I just pay attention to the official numbers some of which I have often posted, and what I see is an aircraft with a performance similar to the Lanc and capable of carrying at least 5,6t of bombs.
On the subject of Italian stuff, the blunt fact is that the Italians were completely out of their league in WWII, a chihuahua that picked a fight with three mastiffs. This makes arguing for an extensive Italian unit list hard to do when there are still significant holes in the unit lists of the five big boys. For my part if the SM.79-II and C.200 were added I'd consider the Italian set satisfactory for the vast majority of scenarios and adding the CR.42 and G.55 to those would effectively call it done.
I would go further and say that of those the biplane is unnecessary.
-
the sm-82 cangaru participated in 15 combat paratrooper drops in ww2. and bombed allied targets in 1940,1941,1942 and 1943. it is a significant aircraft. what you all seem to be forgetting here ,is the fact that the aircraft in the game were not picked because they were THE MOST significant aircraft in their class,if they were,many sub types would not be in game. and remember THIS is a game.if the ju-52 were added,it would end up being a hangar queen after the first month or so....why? TOO SLOW FOR THIS GAME.not too slow in real life,very significant and iconic in real life,this is not real life.its a game. the sm-82 has a top speed of 230-215,depending on source.it would be equal to the c47 in the transport role.it could also bomb for perk farming. it would also be used as a bomber in africa and malta and other med scenario's.......the ju-52 would not be used as a bomber in scenario's,the ju-52 would not be used to builb bomber perks,the ju-52 would be eaten alive in the main arena as a troop transport because it is half the spped as the c-47 and sm-82 and so the novelty of the ju-52 would wear off in a month or two after introduction. so why waste the resources on an aircraft like the ju-52,that wont be used to often after the first two months,when we can use those resources on an aircraft that will be used for multiple facets of the game throughout the games life. and that goes for any new addition to the game. we need aircraft and vehicles THAT WILL be used,not aircraft that wont be used. simply saying that we should add something because it is famous,even though in game it wont be useful,is a waste of time. ever wonder why we dont have the char-b? or panzerII. remember panzer IIs were still being used as late as 1944(lynx),that means the panzerII has one of the longest military careers of any wwII tank,used in many major battles,but we still dont have it,it would not do well in game,unless we had many early war vehicles.for the british we have the lancaster...great plane, where are the other british bombers?...blenheim,Vickers Wellington (Royal Air Force,Handley Page Hampden & Hereford,Armstrong Whitworth Whitley,Short Stirling (Royal Air Force)....some of those served through ww2 and are significant, but they arnt in game...just an example.
-
The JU52 would be a cool aircraft to have but between this Itai bomber and a 52 Id have to say bring up the Cangaro.....and I'd like a Gloster Gladiator to shoot at it with.
-
for the british we have the lancaster...great plane, where are the other british bombers?...blenheim,Vickers Wellington (Royal Air Force,Handley Page Hampden & Hereford,Armstrong Whitworth Whitley,Short Stirling (Royal Air Force)....some of those served through ww2 and are significant, but they arnt in game...just an example.
As I said, the five big boys are still missing many significant aircraft. It behooves us to ask for the units that best represent what we are targeting. For the Italian bomber that is clearly the SM.79-II, a far better bomber than the SM.82. It is hard to justify a whole slew of Italian aircraft at this time given their relatively limited action and so Italian additions should focus on maximizing usefulness.
-
It would be nice to be able to see something like this:
(http://i376.photobucket.com/albums/oo208/jag888/He-111para_zps484ec599.png) (http://s376.photobucket.com/user/jag888/media/He-111para_zps484ec599.png.html)
Funny thing, it doesnt seem to have the 13mm turret of an H-20/R11, supposedly the first paratrooper variant... On the other hand, you can find RZ20 parachutes with a "He-111" mark, and those were replaced in production by the RZ-36 already in 1943...
(http://i376.photobucket.com/albums/oo208/jag888/He-111para-drop_zps79cc322d.png) (http://s376.photobucket.com/user/jag888/media/He-111para-drop_zps79cc322d.png.html)
Unless you are the guy caught by the tailwheel that is...
-
oh now wait...if there is going to be a glouster gladiator...then bring in the cr-42 to counter it....as for the sm-79 vs the sm-82.......i agree..the sm-79 is a better attack aircraft...but IT CANT BRING TROOPS....and here we are AGAIN...the sm-82 can do BOTH...wait let me say that again...BOTH...now a wisper...both.......now the people on the right BOTH
now the people on the left
BOTH.....
-
oh now wait...if there is going to be a glouster gladiator...then bring in the cr-42 to counter it....as for the sm-79 vs the sm-82.......i agree..the sm-79 is a better attack aircraft...but IT CANT BRING TROOPS....and here we are AGAIN...the sm-82 can do BOTH...wait let me say that again...BOTH...now a wisper...both.......now the people on the right BOTH
now the people on the left
BOTH.....
Irrelevant. The Italians are not going to get a troop carrying aircraft before the Germans do and the Italians used the Ju52 as well. Your effort to combine a troop carrier and bomber for the Italians would, if added, give them an inferior bomber that they would be stuck with. Probably for good. The bomber role is much more significant and for that the SM.79-II should be the Italian bomber.
-
Sparviero
(http://imageshack.us/a/img580/8315/zopk.png)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img191/1451/qyys.png)
-
the sm-82 was used by both the germans and the italians...nobody would be getting something before the other...it would be at the same time, sounds like your a bit Prejudice against the italians getting any aircraft.if you have personal issues,please dont bring them here this is aforum for an online game,not real life. and sooooo. the sm-82 would be a good choice,fulfill many roles,be useful in scenarios and main arena,by only adding one aircraft,instead of two,or three. :aok
-
the sm-82 was used by both the germans and the italians...nobody would be getting something before the other...it would be at the same time, sounds like your a bit Prejudice against the italians getting any aircraft.if you have personal issues,please dont bring them here this is aforum for an online game,not real life. and sooooo. the sm-82 would be a good choice,fulfill many roles,be useful in scenarios and main arena,by only adding one aircraft,instead of two,or three. :aok
Actually, it doesn't sound like Karnak is prejudiced against the Italians. It does sound like you are
stubborn and defensive when it comes to your preference of planes to model for them versus
his (or mine), however. And before you jump to add me to your hasty and reckless conclusion,
I'm one of the most fervent supporters of building up the Italian plane set to at least the level of
the next smallest national plane set. I even added your request for this aircraft to the list of
planes I think would benefit Aces High (but not at the expense or even ahead of the SM.79
or Ju-52).
(http://imageshack.us/a/img5/3457/4vqn.png)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img32/1693/owst.png)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img822/7400/11q0.png)
-
the sm-82 was used by both the germans and the italians...nobody would be getting something before the other...it would be at the same time, sounds like your a bit Prejudice against the italians getting any aircraft.if you have personal issues,please dont bring them here this is aforum for an online game,not real life. and sooooo. the sm-82 would be a good choice,fulfill many roles,be useful in scenarios and main arena,by only adding one aircraft,instead of two,or three. :aok
I'm biased against the Italians because I am arguing they should have a better bomber than the SM.82? OK then.
-
its funny what arlo said....in no way im i biased, i want alot of other aircraft,and not just for the italians,for all sideds....but it turn out I WAS RIGHT about what i did say....just look at the previous post,he freely admits it. i am trying to save time,by adding one aircraft that would have MORE use than if we added two aircraft that will result in less use. i really dont know how much use any of these planes would get,but after playing for several years...there is a pattern. when something is introduced, its popular for a month or two and everybody tries it. then its use diminishes if it cant go toe to toe in the main arena with current popular aircraft or gv's. the sm-79 and ju-52 wont do well in the main arena for a few reasons..none of wich are historical. the ju-52 is much slower than the c-47 that is currently in game,and will probably end up being used little...like the german halftrack vs. the m-3. the sm-79 is a slow bomber with small payload and little defensife armament,it will be an easy target in the main arena, in real life its big assets were..that it could carry torpedoes and bring them to target and survive...but put that into context as to when and where this occured and with what the enemy was using to fight it......pretty much the early war arena for us. in the late war arena,it would be toasty sndwich treats,lol. the sm-82 however would still fulfill several roles and be use full and still only be one plane added instead of two.and its funny how a bunch of responses on here cite...it wont be a good bomber for the axis.....aahhh,HELLO!!! its main role would be TRANSPORT, and since it would be about egual to the c47,it would get more use than the ju-52.....and remeber,the germans and italians used the sm-82 as a transport,it would then be a good aircraft to add as it was used by the axis and would be better in the main arena transport role than the ju-52. the fact that the sm-82 can bomb,and was used as a bomber is just an added bonus,there are other axis bombers that are better...none of which haul troops in game.
-
NO
-
...
:huh
-
Posit for a moment that the SM.82 is added because, as you say, it can be another Axis troop transport and an Italian bomber. What now do you think the Italians will never get?
Ah yes, an actual bomber. They'll be stuck with a poor performing transport forced into the bomber role. 212mph? Of things that fly in AH only the Fi156 is slower than that. Even the He111 would be more survivable.
Hence, I argue, it would be far, far better for the SM.79-II or Cant Z.1007 to be added and no Axis transport at all than for the SM.82 to be added in an attempt to fill both the Axis transport and Italian bomber role. Much better for the game if the Axis keeps using "L2D 'Tabby'"s and the Italians get a purpose built bomber.
You may argue that it would be even better for the Italians to get both the SM.82 and the SM.79-II or Cant Z.1007 and while I actually agree with that, I have to ask you, how realistic is that request when the most recently added Italian aircraft was added on April 7th, 2000?
-
karnak,you have a valid point, but lets look at this another way. this game has been around for 10+years....something like that. and the luftwaffe has about 20 aircraft...plus gv's...with ALL that over that amount of time...not only has no transport been added ,but no late war bomber has been added to the luftwaffe. the italians have 2 aircraft and IF an italian aircraft is added,it most likely would be the G-55 fiat.so...saying lets not have an italian transport that would be useful in scenario's(as a bomber) and as a transport for the germans and italains in the main arena...because it may ruin our chances of having another italian bomber that would be better....is like saying if we get the c-47 it might ruin our chances of getting a b-29....which by the way skuzzy said for years we would never have the b-29...we have it now. the allies have at least 10 bombers in game,and if at any time somebody said if we get the a-20,or b-24..we will never get plane X..then they were missing out on the idea that many aircraft and vehicles are missing from the game....and looks like we only get updates 2x(twice) a year. with some popular aircraft on the wishlist like the g-55,d-520,pe-2,baufighter,mig-3,ju-52,he-177,and glouster meteor,and j2m3, plus updating exsisting aircraft that need a remodel, we may never see an italian bomber...ever.i would rather have the sm-82 as a transport that is useful,and as a bomber for scenarios use,than nothing at all.
-
when was the last time a special event featured troop or supply drops as one of the objectives? with no country specific limitations in the main arenas, there hasn't been an actual need for another transport plane...still isn't.
the next fso could use a german transport plane and that is a first since i've been here.
-
when was the last time a special event featured troop or supply drops as one of the objectives? with no country specific limitations in the main arenas, there hasn't been an actual need for another transport plane...still isn't.
the next fso could use a german transport plane and that is a first since i've been here.
To the best of my knowledge no scenario has ever used transports in AH. Transports are pretty much just an MA and AvA convention.
-
To the best of my knowledge no scenario has ever used transports in AH. Transports are pretty much just an MA and AvA convention.
But they could ... and that adds an element to battle. :)
-
Unlike all of those the SM.82 would require 100% original artwork for a multi-engine, multi-station aircraft.
I don't see anybody here saying the SM.82 is inappropriate to add, simply that there are much better choices for the time investment from HTC.
I'd love to see the SM.79-II show up on the front page of the site.
Yes on the SM.79 :aok
-
(http://www.finn.it/regia/immagini/artwork/artwk_sm79_shigeo_koike.jpg)
-
as a matter of fact transports have been used in aces high scenario's or special events...the recent 4 frame BOB(battle of britain) scenario used pt boats and c-47 for BOTH sides as a means of air sea rescue..the sm-82 could be used as a transport and a bomber for main arena and scenario's........but most likely would be used primarily as a transport in the main arena and a bomber in scenarios....NOT both.....but it could................and with recent events(BOB) it shows it would be useful at both roles in scenario's
-
as a matter of fact transports have been used in aces high scenario's or special events...the recent 4 frame BOB(battle of britain) scenario used pt boats and c-47 for BOTH sides as a means of air sea rescue..the sm-82 could be used as a transport and a bomber for main arena and scenario's........but most likely would be used primarily as a transport in the main arena and a bomber in scenarios....NOT both.....but it could................and with recent events(BOB) it shows it would be useful at both roles in scenario's
you forgot the storch. but the rescue idea in special events is something very new and the bob scenario was the first time it was tried. the use of the c47 for rescue was over the top but, understandable due to the lack of an allied equal to the storch. the possibility of the rescue idea being used in snapshots, this day in ww2, or fso is slim to none due to the amount of time involved.
as much as the sm-82 would be cool to have, the sm.79 would be the far better addition. nice try though...
would have been nice if htc had added the L2 or L3 grasshopper when they added the storch...
-
would have been nice if htc had added the L2 or L3 grasshopper when they added the storch...
Or Lysander.
-
how would the sm-79 be MORE useful than the sm-82...several have stated it would,but never state why.....any fso,scenario,or special event that could use the sm-79......could also use the storch. some events that incorporate air sea rescue,can use the sm-82..but not the sm-79. and in the BOB event,everybody loved the idea of airsea rescue to save your life and continue flying your first aircraft of choice,it was a success. then we have the main arena, the sm-82 would primarily be used as a transport there. in that arena,the map and winning depend on taking bases.and so opportunities would be everyday on every map for use of a transport...troops,vehicle supply or field supply. however, how would the sm-79 be in the main arena? i think when it comes up against p-51's.p-47's,p-38.fw-190's,late bf-109's.yaks;la's.ki-84's.nik1's,c-205, and other aircraft.....it would be toast......and in many ways just BURNT toast. its main asset of torpedoes can not be used on every map,and on the ones that it would...i believe due to its armament,speed,and size,would just be a flaming funeral pyre. it would not perform well due to one giant factor. in real life it flew against light armed to unarmed ships and aircraft,and that is not the case in the main arena where it would run into many heavily armed aircraft.our cv would tear it appart. but i am open minded. any new additions to the game will be welcomed.i was just hoping to combine multiroles in one aircraft that would perform better in game than it did in real life due to our game play.
-
if you're going to use the rescue angle for your argument, the only plane that actually makes sense is the storch and whatever the allied counterpart would be...other than a couple of flying boats, ever other plane used is a poor substitute.
theoretically we could use fighters for air rescue as well...if some pilot accounts are to be believed.
-
not true...what makes sense is what we actually have used and works. we have used the c-47.we need a european axis counterpart that will be comparable...the sm-82. the storch will not carry troops to capture a base. we do not ned a dedicated air sea rescue aircraft....but i agree the storch should have this capability as well...and an allied counterpart should be added. that brings back to the original post. the sm-82 will perform multi roles and is a historical accurate aircraft for both the luftwaffe and the regia aeronautica
-
SM.82 would mean that the Italians never get a remotely usable bomber.
Is that sacrifice worth it for a transport, something where performance differences aren't all that important?
I maintain that it would be far, far better for the Axis to keep using the C-47 as their transport and to get the SM.79-II than it would be to get the SM.82 and lose out on getting an actual Italian bomber.
Also, the rescue ideas are dumb and a waste of time for both the MA and scenarios. Not that the SM.82 could even perform that role.
-
Also, the rescue ideas are dumb and a waste of time for both the MA and scenarios.
that i would disagree with in scenarios. i flew the last frame of the bob scenario and with the appropriate variations in the rules, it was very cool. staying stuck in the "good ole days" mentality is silly and makes things stale...
-
the sm-82 has similiar performance to the c-47. the c-47 has performed the role of rescue in events,and has performed as transport in arenas, the sm-82 would do the same thing...for the axis side. saying that since an aircraft already is in use that does a specific role and so we should therefore NOT add another aircraft,isnt too smart. with that idea in place, there would not be the rivalry between say....bf-109 and spitfire, or a6m and f4u, etc etc etc, in other words, there should be a counterpart as there was in real life assumming there was one in real life..exceptions noted would be things like the AR-234, the allies didnt have a similiar aircraft in use. in this case, there was an aircraft in use in real life and is comparable to the allied version that is in game. the added benefit of the aircraft as a bomber is just that...an added benefit. as for the argument that...if we get a transport that does its job well and it also bombs...but not well..and therefore we wont get another italian bomber...well look at it this way, we dont have an italian bomber in game....and if we dont get one...ever..... the game still goes on because there are OTHER axis bombers, remember the italians used many GERMAN aircraft in real life,this is reflected in the fact that in game many german aircraft have italain skins available. and so if someone want to do an all axis mission...having a mixture of italian and german aircraft would be ok from a historical standpoint......for a fun standpoint,most mission are based on a good aircraft to fit the mission objectives and so we see many aircraft from several sides flying together and from a game standpoint thats ok too. so in my wish.we get a troop transport with many other benefits...but they are not required extras,just extras to the transport role. in your idea, we get a lightly armed,light bomb load aircraft,that will have limited use that can have torpedoes...although the ju-88,he-111 and japanese aircraft already have this for the axis side already..so nothing added there,just another light bomber and still no axis transport.
-
C-47 can do the same thing for the Axis side. As you note, it has similar performance. What cannot be done is for the SM.82 to simulate an SM.79. Or are you suggesting that the He111 or Ju88 be subbed in for the SM.79-II so that Italy isn't stuck with a complete dog of a bomber? Speaking from experience with the Spitfire that won't happen. Every scenario involving Italian bombers would end up using the SM.82.
As to the idea of rescue, if you want to do it, fine, but asking for things added just for it is even sillier than sitting on a polygonal hill for an hour waiting for rescue.
In the MA pilot rescue would be either never used or, if there were rewards that encouraged it, bad for the game as a guy sitting on a hill isn't really participating anymore than a guy sitting in the tower. Worse, the guy doing the rescue flight also isn't really participating and he has been pulled out of participation to go play taxi. Beyond that, the C-47, SM.82 and Ju52 would never be used for such rescues as those would fall to the Storch, Grasshopper, Lysander or Po-2 on land or various flying boats like the Walrus at sea.
-
first,nobody said anything about air sea rescue in the main arena...except YOU, second the c-47 could and does the job now when a mission is axis planes, and the fw-190d-9 performs similiar to the p-51d in some aspects....why would you want to get rid of the p-51d....i mean..that is YOUR argument...that since there is an allied plane that can do the job for the allies....then an axis plane that really did the job in real life shouldnt be added...that works both ways. either way..the axis still need a transport.......show me a unit in the luftwaffe or the italian airforces(1940-43 or 1943-45 on axis side) that the unit used and flew the c-47 as a transport.....which you cant because this is your fantasy. and third. the italians cant get stuck with a bomber unless a bomber is added for them......with a 2200lb bomb load the sm-79 is no great italian bomber....and remember the sm-79 is YOUR sugestion...which by the way...lol...does not solve the lack of a transport for the axis. mine does
-
Don't put words in my mouth.
The subtle performance differences between fighters are very important to fights between each other.
The different capabilities of bombers are important to their likelihood of success and to their overall utility.
The different capabilities of transports are notable but not that significant to their role.
Due to how fighters are used the differences between their capabilities and performances are maximized hence it is much more important to the game to model the different fighters. Subbing fighters is very undesirable. A bit less important, but still important, the differences between bombers. Some bombers can sub for other bombers pretty well, but in general subbing is not good. Due to how transports are used their performance and capability differences are minimized rather than maximized. Subbing transports can be done with minimal negative effect.
Due to this is it much more important to get the SM.79-II or Z.1007 as a bomber than it is to get the SM.82 as a transport as it is much more the bomber role in which performance and capabilities affect the game.
If you want to talk about the SM.82 in addition to the SM.79-II/Z.1007, fine, but it is certainly not a replacement for a true bomber and should not come first. The SM.82's true competition is the Ju52.
-
now who's putting words in who's mouth......at no time have i said that the sm-82 would be the ONLY italian aircraft,bomber or other,added to the game.at no time did i ever say that if we get the sm-82 it would replace all other italian bombers.i simply said that it would be a comparable performing TRANSPORT,which the axis needs,AND it could bomb in scenario's and special events and would be useful in those events as a bomber and transport(air sea rescue) and in the main arena as a transport,and by adding the one plane we get the benefits in multi arena's.i HAVE stated that other aircraft are needed.
as for performance of transports not being significant....you should try capturing a base right now...with the hanomag german halftrack.WHEN there are others trying to do the same in the m-3 american halftrack.there is only a small difference in speed performance between those two,but it makes a BIG difference in the actually delivery of troops. now look at the speed difference between the ju-52 and the c-47,its almost 2x. that means IF you have no enemy aircraft attacking the transports,the c-47 will get there and let troops out twice as fast as the ju-52. try that a few times and not many people will fly the ju-52 when the c-47 is available....same as it is in game right now between the hanomag german halftrack and the american m-3 halftrack.
-
now who's putting words in who's mouth......at no time have i said that the sm-82 would be the ONLY italian aircraft,bomber or other,added to the game.at no time did i ever say that if we get the sm-82
You didn't and I didn't say you did.
What I am saying is that is what would happen should the SM.82 be added, your intentions are 100% irrelevant to that outcome just as my intentions regarding the Spitfires VIII and XVI are 100% irrelevant to how they actually get used, or don't as the case is.
-
relevence is not the issue. this is a WISHLIST, i have stated my wish,and shown what merits it would have and that it is historically accurate to have in game. it would be more useful in game then just adding one plane of the other planes that were mentioned.
-
relevence is not the issue. this is a WISHLIST, i have stated my wish,and shown what merits it would have and that it is historically accurate to have in game. it would be more useful in game then just adding one plane of the other planes that were mentioned.
Methinks you're attempting to push the 'more useful' parameter as something that trumps all others. When taken into context alongside event usefulness and iconic presence the 'more useful' takes a back seat.
-
relevence is not the issue. this is a WISHLIST, i have stated my wish,and shown what merits it would have and that it is historically accurate to have in game. it would be more useful in game then just adding one plane of the other planes that were mentioned.
So wish for pink ponies and rainbows?
Sure, if you want, but you won't get it.
If the SM.82 is added we will not get the SM.79-II and the SM.82 will be used as the Italian bomber in all historical events that use an Italian bomber.
-
i sure dont remember reading that anywhere. where to you get your made up fantasy information,lol?
-
i sure dont remember reading that anywhere. where to you get your made up fantasy information,lol?
I'm sorry, but your comment doesn't make sense. Please explain what you mean.
-
USED BY THE ITALIANS AND GERMANS AND OTHER AXIS NATIONS THROUGHOUT THE WAR.many different camo scemes used wartime,used for axis supply and paratroop jumps and early on was used as a bomber. a good addition to the axis plane set as it fills many roles including.....italian bomber,italian and german troop and supply transport,africa scenario axis bomber,malta scenario axis bomber,main arena axis supply and troops(unarmed).huge perk point builder in the bomber catagory.
simply have it armed when bombs are the payload,and unarmed when troops or supply is the payload
General characteristics
Crew: 4
Capacity: 40 troops
Length: 22.9 m (75 ft 1½ in)
Wingspan: 29.68 m (97 ft 4½ in)
Height: 6.0 m (19 ft 8.25 in)
Wing area: 118.6 m² (1,276.64 ft²)
Empty weight: 10,550 kg (bomber 11,200 kg) (23,259 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 18,020 kg (bomber 18,410 kg) (39,727 lb)
Powerplant: 3 × Alfa Romeo 128 RC.21 9-cylinder radial engines, 708 kW (950 hp) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 347 km/h (187 kn, 212 mph)
Cruise speed: 250 km/h (135 kn, 125 mph) at 3,000 m (9,840 ft)
Stall speed: 110 km/h (59 kn, 68 mph)
Range: 2,100 km (1,134 nmi, 1,864 mi)
Service ceiling: 6,000 m (19,685 ft)
Armament
1 × 12.7 mm (.5 in) Scotti machine gun in dorsal turret
3 × 7.7 mm (.303 in) Breda-SAFAT machine guns in ventral and lateral positions
4,000 kg (8,818 lb) bombload
(http://savoia_Marchetti_SM82_Canguru)
40 Troops? :O Forget your goon!
-
you would only have 10 troops as per the game, not 40. and the cargo supplies loadout would be the same as the c-47.