Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: F4UDOA on November 27, 2002, 01:29:17 PM
-
First let me say Kudo's to Superfly on this one. This is definitly IL-2 quality graphics work on this one. Beautiful really!!
Anyway enough butt kissing.
I know virtually nothing about the Ju-87 so I pulled up a quick web search and this is what I found.
Ju 87D (D-1/D-2/D-3/D-4/D-5/D-7/D-8) - The Ju 87D had a completely redesigned engine installation. The engine was still a derivative of the Jumo 211, but the more powerful 1,410 hp (1051 kW) 211J-1 or 1,500 hp (1119 kW) Jumo 211P model was used depending on the version. The main coolant radiator was removed from under the engine cowling, and two radiators were installed under the wing centre section instead. A shallow oil cooler was retained under the engine cowling. A new constant speed Junkers VS-11 propeller with paddle blades was used. Increased armour protection for the crew was also introduced. There were also other aerodynamic refinements. The greenhouse canopy now tapered aft, instead of having a nearly constant cross-section as had that of the B-model. The aft gunners exchanged the single 75 round drum-fed MG 15 machine-gun for twin belt-fed MG 81 machine-guns.
The bomb release gear was better faired in, and the maximal bomb load was increased to 3,969 lbs (1800 kg). This could include a single PC 1400 3,086 lbs (1400 kg) armour-piercing bomb on the centreline rack. The landing gear was again strengthened, but nevertheless the Ju 87D retained a reputation for landing gear collapses on rough runways. The wheel covers were again changed, and the fitting for sirens were eliminated, but after 1942 the spats and wheel fairings were increasingly discarded. The Ju 87D-2 was basically a D-1 but strengthened to equip a glider tow hook.
The Ju 87D-3 introduced even more additional armour for the crew and vital parts of the aircraft reflecting the Ju 87s increasing use as a Schlachtflugzeug (close-support aircraft). From the D-4 model onwards the 7.92 mm window guns were replaced by the 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon. The Ju 87D-4 was a torpedo-bomber version capable of carrying a single torpedo with only a few example built. The Ju 87D-5 model had a longer wing span, with pointed wing tip extensions for use as a dedicated close-support version with jettisonable landing gear and no dive brakes. An interesting development was the Ju 87D-7, a night ground-attack model converted from Ju 87D-3s and Ju 87D-5s with a 1,500 hp (1119 kW) Jumo 211P engine with exhaust pipes extending back across the wing. The Ju 87D-8 was a day version of Ju 87D-7 without night-flying equipment and flame-dampers. The wing mounted machine-guns replaced by 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon and dive brakes were omitted. The Ju 87D-8 was the last aircraft type in production when in September 1944, all aircraft production other than fighters, was terminated.
So in other words if we had the D-4 instead of the D-3 we would have a 20mill defensive cannon instead of a 7.92mil. Why not just give us the D-4 so it could fly in the MA a little better?
Also the twin 37mill anti-tank option didn't show up until the G series so that armament is also out of the question.
Why?
-
HTC will now need to design a bigger bomb than the current 500kg :o
about time
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Also the twin 37mill anti-tank option didn't show up until the G series so that armament is also out of the question.
Why?
Take a D3 and give it 2 x 37mm and you have a G1.............
lets wait and see............. maybe if we are all really nice............
I take your point re the 20mm which for me would be the D5/G2 variants.........however for scenario stuff you could make a D3 act like a B with those twin 7.62 mm...........
Also of interest is that it could drop its fuselage and wing bombs at the same time.....................
-
I suspect we got the D3 because it was the last common variant which was a true dive bomber. The D4 wasn't very common and the D5 onwards didn't have dive brakes as they were designed for close support rather than divebombing.
This seems entirely reasonable: if we are going to have one Stuka it should be a dive bomber version and it should be one of the later, more survivable models.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
with pointed wing tip extensions for use as a dedicated close-support version with jettisonable landing gear and no dive brakes.
jettisonable landing gear! :eek: :eek: they're crazy!
-
None of my sources say the D5 had jettisonable landing gear, however the I believe the Ju-87C carrier variant did: I assume the idea was that it would be difficult to ditch safely at sea with the gear legs attached (it also had folding wings and an arrestor hook). Since the Graf Zeppelin was never completed the C never saw service.
-
The Ju 87D-3 had a 1400 hp Jumo 211 J 12 Cylinder liquid-cooled inverted vee and carried 1600kg of ord of Various loads up to a maximum 3,968 lbs. This version is haevier then the d1 and less manuverable. The d3 had no dive Siren.
The Ju 87D-3 introduced even more additional armour for the crew and vital parts of the aircraft reflecting the Ju 87s increasing use as a Schlachtflugzeug (close-support aircraft). From the D-4 model onwards the 7.92 mm window guns were replaced by the 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon. The Ju 87D-4 was a torpedo-bomber version capable of carrying a single torpedo with only a few example built. The Ju 87D-5 model had a longer wing span, with pointed wing tip extensions for use as a dedicated close-support version with jettisonable landing gear and no dive brakes. An interesting development was the Ju 87D-7, a night ground-attack model converted from Ju 87D-3s and Ju 87D-5s with a 1,500 hp (1119 kW) Jumo 211P engine with exhaust pipes extending back across the wing. The Ju 87D-8 was a day version of Ju 87D-7 without night-flying equipment and flame-dampers. The wing mounted machine-guns replaced by 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon and dive brakes were omitted. The Ju 87D-8 was the last aircraft type in production when in September 1944, all aircraft production other than fighters, was terminated.
About the D5
The Ju 87 D-3 had been found too slow and not maneuvrable enough by the crews. Learning from that, this new version (d5) of the Stuka had lengthened wings and more armement. The dive brakes were abandonned in the course of this series: the plane was almost never used as a dive bomber any more and only as ground support plane.
The d3 became the g1 witrh added 2 37mm Rheinmetall-Borsig BK 3,7 (Flak 18 or Flak 36) anti-tank cannon and the deletion of the 7mm and dive breaks.
The D5 became the G2
Ju 87G (G-1/G-2) - The Ju 87G was the final version of the Stuka. It abandoned the dive attack in favour of an armament of two 37mm Rheinmetall-Borsig BK 3,7 (Flak 18 or Flak 36) anti-tank cannon weighing over 800 lbs (363 kg). These weapons fired special armour-piercing ammunition, with tungsten cores, at a muzzle velocity of 2,790 ft (850 m) per second. They were installed in gun pods fitted outboard of the landing gear legs. The ammunition was in six-round clips. The first operational trials were made in March 1943. The normal 7.92 mm or 20 mm wing guns were deleted. Dive bombing was not possible with the additional weight of the guns, so the dive brakes were also deleted. The Ju 87G could still drop bombs, but not in a dive. Initially, the Ju 87G was seen as quite dangerous to its crews. The additional weight and drag of the wing guns adversely affected performance and handling, and low-level attacks in the face of the Russian AAA and fighters seemed suicidal. But true as that was, it remained that the Ju 87G was extremely effective. The 37 mm gun was in 1943 considered obsolete as an anti-tank gun on the ground, but from the air it was still effective, because the Ju 87G could attack tanks from the rear or from above, were their armour was much thinner. Not that the Germans refrained from trying out bigger cannon on anti-tank aircraft, but the Ju 87 could not possibly carry these, and larger aircraft such as the Ju 88 were not agile enough to operate successfully against tanks. There were two versions, the G-1 and the G-2, with short and long wing spans, respectively with the G-2 based on the long-wing D-5 model. Production of the Ju 87 was halted definitively in October 1944. The greatest exponent of the Ju 87G-1 was Hans-Ulrich Rudel who was personally credited with the destruction of 519 Russian armoured vehicles. He flew 2,530 combat missions and continued to lead Stuka formations in daylight long after the other Stukagruppen had replaced their vunerable aircraft with the Focke-Wulf Fw 190.
We can get multiple uses from the d3 due to its gun load out. It also allows for the G1. Just add the 37mm and delete the 7mm wing guns. HT we also need to adjust the hard points for the limited bomb load of the g.
The D3 was the last "dive bomb" version of the Stuka. The d3 provides ht with the ability to get 2 fer 1.
The d4 was only produced in limited numbers.
-
Wotan is correct. With the Ju87D-3 we get a Stuka that can be subbed in for the Ju87B of the BoB, as well as one that can be easily modified to the Ju87G-1 standard.
This is very much like adding the Boston Mk III and A-20G at the same time.
The Ju87D-5 would be completely unsuitable for subbing into a BoB setup as a Ju87B.
-
I am happy to see the Stuka, and Imo, the models chosen were good choices, I was concerned that if we got the stuka it would be the D-5 with the added powere and 20mm cannons and would their fore of been very out of place in early war CT and event's set up's, this is a great choice imo. TY Pyro ans Supperfly she is very Beautiful.
-
Maybe with the model in place, there's room for a couple of variants of the plane to be made available in the future.
-Amboss
-
If you look at the OB for the Niemen scenario, I suspect those variants are already done.
If only we had the T-34! :D
-
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
If you look at the OB for the Niemen scenario, I suspect those variants are already done.
If only we had the T-34! :D
No just wish full thinking on my part..........we had a re skinned val:( waiting just in case............
The G1 is not confirmed yet and due dates may even mean the D3 comes too late...............
my fingers are firmly crossed............
CM's get little/no advance notification of this stuff
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
HTC will now need to design a bigger bomb than the current 500kg :o
about time
Any one got the various load outs for the D3
seems the centre could take 250/500/1000 and a special 1350 kg bomb.
The wings had twined point each however I have a pic of one carrying 250kg cluster bomb containers on each wing.............
However if we use the limit of 1600/1800kg pay load capacity
Would this mean that the wings can carry
1 x 250 kg each wing or
1 x 200 kg each wing
2 x 150 kg each wing
2 x 100kg each wing
I assume (perhaps wrongly) that any centre bomb would not exceed 1000kg in the AH variant
-
Brady,
Honestly this may be a good choice for you and the CT but for the rest of AH it will go the way of the Val and SBD. There must be 700 people a day in the MA and maybe 30 in the CT. How is this a good choice?
The addition of the 20mil defensive cannon would ruin it for use in the CT or be an inconvenient detail? In the MA it's very use depends on it. Look at the JU-88. It's completely indefensable with 7.7mil machine guns but if a slightly later version were used it would be much more useful in the MA for the MAJORITY of AH users. Instead of the Val we could have a Grace and so on.
Seriously the politics in AH are starting to be a real pain.
-
when the last scenario was on there was more people in the SEA than in the MA.... and it will probably be used in the Mission Arena alot... ;) it's a WWII game we have you know, we can't only have planes from 44-45, we need planes from all times of the war...
-
20mm wont a fek of difference in the main. All versions of the ju87 are slow, climb poorly and have poor rear guns. Look at the il2. Its nothing but cannon fodder. Despite what widewing would have you believe so is the sbd and tbm. However in the ct and events where there is certain level of plane parity the 7mm may not be the quick killer but they will get kills.
In bob, cap and BoB ct setups I got most of my kills after my 20mm was out in the 109e.
The d4 was the one of the least produced models. The d5 has no dive flaps and was final "close support version". Its roll was different then the d1. While the d3 was a "transitional" model from the "divebombing" stuka to a "close support" stuka. It had added armor for pilot protection.(ofcourse its will be facing osties 99% of time in ah) and still retained its dive flaps.
2 20mm will rarely kill a gv and its not like you will be able to run anyone down or keep a gun solution long enough to get kills except maybe in a vulch situation or if you attack completely unseen. Its will be a hanger queen in the main no matter the load out. However events (like the 1 upcoming) and in previous events (BoB and AK) the stuka has/had a roll. And dont under estimate the ct. More hanger queens get flown there in 1 month then the main. The 202 in the current set up owns.
HT gets the best bang for the buck out of this model.
-
There were D-5s with dive breaks. AFAIK all D-5s didn't have them but for example Gefechtsverband Kuhlmey's D-5s indeed had them...and the 20mm cannons aswell. Kuhlmey's unit used its D-5s in the dive bombing role.
Because of Gefechtsverband Kuhlmey and its impact in the final battles during the Continuation War D-5 was definately the model I would have liked to see but I'm VERY happy to see any D-model! :) I suspected HTC was going to model BoB-era Stuka (B-model) with the G-model so I for one am pleasently surprised. :)
Here's a photo where both MG 151/20s and the dive breaks are visible.
-
im to lazy to read the whole forum but what plane is that? it looks like a STUKA
-
Originally posted by frank3
im to lazy to read the whole forum but what plane is that? it looks like a STUKA
Thats because it is one :D
-
From "German Warplanes of World War 2":
-
F4UDOA:
From a thread on our Squad forum a reply by Me:
"Wotan is bang on Comrad Fork,even if we get the G with those dual Osty cannon's I doubt very much if it will be used very much at all past the "Novality Perioud". Look at the Huricane "D", prety much same leval of effectiveness gun wise, If I had a choice I would take the Huricane IIC every time for GV hunting.
The reasion being It its a better tool for it, curently the way the armor model is that is simply the fact's.
The Stuka I realy feal for the Lager Magority of players is simply a case of be carefull what you ask for we may just get it, I am happy in way that they added it for now it is out of the way, and they can do other stuff. It does have a very important place in any early war set up, so from the historical aspect it is a valued component, but in terms of it's value as a MA tool, it has none or next to non. For any CT set up, other than Early war It will be dogmeat,and in an early warset up it will fair better than it's historical counterp[art simply because it is a later war model, any special event's set up it will be the same, I remember when or squad intercepted a flight of 12 IL-2's one day in TOD, they were all dead in like 2 min. I doubt the Stuka would live that long. It is a vehical for creating imershion. If I were to milk run a base, Most likely I would take a JU 88 with (4) 500KG's and 25% fuel instead of the Stuka.
If I had the plate in front of me with all the posable choices I would not of Picked it personaly, but I am by the same token not entierly unhappy it is hear. "
I am glade they picked the models they did only because they fit into the Historical event's and a broader timeframe of possable CT set up's.
The late war Japanese planes with cannon arament like the George and far more formadiable aircraft, thye cant even be compard to the stuka.
-
Wotan - you may think it is a 'waste of time' modelling planes like the stuka, but you ought to consider that many AH players are only here for scenarios and special events. I am one of them. If it weren't for the CM group and HTCs support of the concept I would be long gone by now; the MA is a boring, repetitive kindergarten most of the time. I use it as a practise arena, if at all. I find that most of the time, I'm killing inexperienced newbies in a FFA. It's like clubbing seals sometimes, and I'm not particularly outstanding a player. In the scenarios however, it's all about the team and individual pilot skill counts for much less. I find it much more challenging an environment and I also get to fight against the best in AH on a more regular basis. And lose of course, but that's part of the fun.
You might argue that historical matchups are not what people want and cite the CT as an example. IMO, despite the hard work of the CT group, the combat theatre is not supported because of the lack of emmersion in terms of a strategic picture. Scenarios set goals and targets along with a command structure - this adds heaps to the emmersion. The lack of numbers is always going to be a problem, since no-one wants to fly in an empty arena. A classic catch-22 situation, definitely.
The mission theatre sounds like it will be very successful and will start to add that structure I'm talking about. But it needs the holes in the planest filled, and without the stuka, there is a very large hole indeed.
-
Wotan - you may think it is a 'waste of time' modelling planes like the stuka
Dunno where you get that.........
I fly scenarios and events as much as anyone. I was a CT CM for awhile. I dont think I ever said it was a 'waste of time'. I am on the command staff for Niemen. I was Co for the BoB scenario.
What I said was 2 x 20mm or 2 x 7mm wont any difference in the main at all. Withlimb between 1200-1500 fpm (which drops off considerably above 12k) and a top speed at about 250 mph clean it wouldnt matter if ht modelled a d4 or a d5. You wont see it in the main. It terms of event and ct planning the d3 makes sense because it could sub for earlier variants. The D3 also allows the G1 to be modelled. If you read the other 6 Stuka threads you will see exactly what I have said.
Or just go back up and read my 1st reply in this thread.
The Ct gets 10% or so of the main with a weely peak at about 65. "Unsupporterd" or a "Failure" are relative terms. Historic arenas in other games have about the same numbers as our ct.
There are groups of guys who fly the ct only.
Also I made over 6 to 8 posts all stating that ht made the correct choice in modelling the d3.
You must have mis-read my last reply or have me confused with some one else.
-
Maybe you're right. I was sure it was you. Oh well... :)
-
Maybe I'm missing something here because the Stuka or German Iron really is not my specialty. However the armament in which I am speaking of is the defensive not the offensive variety.
Namely the rear facing 20mill option. Here is a snip from the artical I first posted.
From the D-4 model onwards the 7.92 mm window guns were replaced by the 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon.
Maybe this is wrong or I am mistaken but I read this as the rearward facing machine gun.
The JU-88 suffers from the same delemma of having two 7.7Mil machine guns sticking out the rear for defense. This does not prevent me from making dead 6 runs on it all day with no fear of damage. At least the 20mil gives you a fighting chance.
The problem I have with the CA is that it is a very small minority of AH players. Maybe this will change with the mission arena but for now that's the way it is.
So in my opinion the CM's should make due with a JU-87D-4 instead of the MA dealing with the D-3.
Also
Val = Grace
Ju-88 should be a newer model with better defensive armament.
ME110G2 = ME410
Maybe HTC plans on adding these A/C at some point and time but IMHO the wrong people in AH are making due with what is available.
And BTW I do want a Stuka in AH. It was to important to leave out. It's the details that annoy me the most.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Namely the rear facing 20mill option. Here is a snip from the artical I first posted.
Maybe this is wrong or I am mistaken but I read this as the rearward facing machine gun.
"The D-5 also replaced its wing-mounted 7.92mm machine guns with 20mm cannon, had extended wings to reduce the wing loading and re-introduced the jettisonable undercarriage of the Clara to make belly landings safer. "
No the wing guns were the ones up graded the rear firing guns were the twin 7.92 found in the coffin belly of the Ju 88..... I think these replaced a single 7.92 gun after the B.
...and if I read Staga's post then the D3 can be loaded with two 20mm gondolas per wing! which would give 4 x 20mm + 2 x 7.92mm forward firing plus a 1360 kg bomb!............
I'd like to see more stuff on load out options of the D3.................
-
...and, with the underfuselage load limited to 500kg, on the underwing hardpoints blaah blaah blaah, or two Waffenbehälter (weapon container) pods...
Anyway fuselage hardpoint was rated for 1800kg load and hardpoints in wings for 500kg.
3x500kg sounds pretty nice or maybe that 1800kg for deleting the hangars from the base.
-
Originally posted by Staga
[B
Anyway fuselage hardpoint was rated for 1800kg load and hardpoints in wings for 500kg.
[/B]
seems to me that the total load could not exceed 1600/1800 (depending on source) even though the sum of the individual points could be higher..............
-
Well pic says up to 1800kg, pretty clear to me :)
-
We CT'rs and scenario ppl need an early war stuka! I agree with wotan, wont matter much what armament it has in MA, but I have killed a spit or 2 with the vals front guns in MA :)
Besides, u don't even know if they got another version comin or not, they could very well add 2 versions of it.