Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Chalenge on July 02, 2012, 03:49:29 AM
-
I like the Arado. Love it actually. The designers really knew what they were doing! But I have a few problems with it as it is.
1) The Arado never had rear facing cannons. I fly this plane. I fly it without the cannons. It doesnt need them.
2) The Arado never flew in formations. Formations should be removed for this aircraft. It doesnt need them and the formations are only there for scoring. With the survivability of this plane it can make multiple trips just fine.
3) The Arado is not a bomber. The Arado is an attacker. I understand about the level bomber role being a possibility since the function was there to unstrap and use the sight and bomb. I also understand it was never done that way. The Arado was most often (I woud say always) used as a dive bomber (attack).
So this is a three way wish. Remove the guns. Remove formations. Add an attack role.
Add forward facing gunpods if you wish. :D
:salute
-
I don't have all the literature to support your first wish (rear guns) but I do agree with the formations and attack score - personally I think this would be a good thing. As it is, i have never seen a formation of 234s - always solo and always armed (and mind you, those rear 20s can be deadly!!)
-
See Lyrics contribution throughout this thread:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,305406.0.html
-
the 20mm's should indeed be removed, especially when you see how it is exploited with the F3 view...
-
Agreed Lyric did some nice work there!!!
Sure would like to have that forward gun !!
-
the 20mm's should indeed be removed, especially when you see how it is exploited with the F3 view...
It wouldn't require F3 if the periscope worked :old:
-
Apparently, NKL5 got a few or you guy's pelts.
-
I guess people are tired of getting owned by the 234. :)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s162/spikesx/Aces%20High%20II/ddddddd.png)
-
Never really had a problem with the 234...why change it?
-
I guess people are tired of getting owned by the 234. :)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s162/spikesx/Aces%20High%20II/ddddddd.png)
Everyone knows the 20mm can't move left or right. :noid
-
Everyone knows the 20mm can't move left or right. :noid
I got asked a lot about that. Just my rudder movements badly timed with when I paused the film.
-
I guess we all have different definitions of "ownage"
In any case, more realism can't be bad.
-
Never really had a problem with the 234...why change it?
Because it isn't accurate.
Did anybody really have a problem with the .50s, bombs and rockets on the Spitfire Mk IX? No, but they weren't accurate for that model of Spitfire Mk IX and thus were correctly removed when the Spitfires were updated.
-
But I thought they did have rear 20mm? :headscratch:
-
But I thought they did have rear 20mm? :headscratch:
Per Lyric's data it never actually had them, just the technical ability to have them.
-
I like the Arado. Love it actually. The designers really knew what they were doing! But I have a few problems with it as it is.
1) The Arado never had rear facing cannons. I fly this plane. I fly it without the cannons. It doesnt need them.
2) The Arado never flew in formations. Formations should be removed for this aircraft. It doesnt need them and the formations are only there for scoring. With the survivability of this plane it can make multiple trips just fine.
3) The Arado is not a bomber. The Arado is an attacker. I understand about the level bomber role being a possibility since the function was there to unstrap and use the sight and bomb. I also understand it was never done that way. The Arado was most often (I woud say always) used as a dive bomber (attack).
So this is a three way wish. Remove the guns. Remove formations. Add an attack role.
Add forward facing gunpods if you wish. :D
:salute
:aok
-
What's hanging there under the Ar 234 wings outside of the engine nacelles?
On this position nothing else than RATO packs possible, bombs/DT were below the engines or the center fuselage.
-
What's hanging there under the Ar 234 wings outside of the engine nacelles?
On this position nothing else than RATO packs possible, bombs/DT were below the engines or the center fuselage.
Those are RATO units. The player retained them when taking off so as to use them as an escape tool.
-
I see more gamey stuff in this plane than any other. How about the JATO's. How many of the real mission pilots saved those untill they have been spotted by the enemy and then fired them off to run away.
The F3 vew is NOT like the periscope view. It shows you waay to much. Do you really think the Luft Pilot staring through a reverse image periscope would be able to then deftly manuver his aircraft to a gun solution. Hardly, at best it would have given him a hint on when to fire.
Absurd.
And no, I haven't been killed by one and am now complaining. I used to enjoy flying the plane. Now I realize its just too gamey to fly.
Of course if you want to have an aircraft that very few bother to attack, run your "missions" without interacting with anyone else, well there ya are.
-
Some 234's did have the cannons mounted and that's why we have them in Aces High.
-
Some 234's did have the cannons mounted and that's why we have them in Aces High.
Prove it. There is no evidence that is true. None.
-
Prove it. There is no evidence that is true. None.
I think you mean to say that there is no evidence it's not true. If you think you know more about
WW2 aircraft than Jeff Ethel and Alfred Price that's your problem not mine.
-
I think you mean to say that there is no evidence it's not true. If you think you know more about
WW2 aircraft than Jeff Ethel and Alfred Price that's your problem not mine.
Lyric has done quite a bit of research on this, in fact I have 5-6 manuals that have factory data on the Ar-234 and not one photo ever shows it with rear facing cannons.
I think Lyric caught this one, I never really noticed it.
Far as I am concerned unless proof is shown, and lyric has shown more then enough proof - the ar234 did not carry rear firing cannons.
-
Most of them didn't Butcher. Now prove that none of them did. You might also ask yourself why the AH version has them.
-
Most of them didn't Butcher. Now prove that none of them did. You might also ask yourself why the AH version has them.
Probably for the Arcade aspect of aces high, same reason the P51D has both bombs and rockets.
-
Most of them didn't Butcher. Now prove that none of them did. You might also ask yourself why the AH version has them.
Because AH didn't know it better, just as I did from my readings before I was convinced by the very detailed reserch by lyric. It's probably a thing similar to the myth of the 109K having MGs 151/20 in place of the 13mm machineguns and carrying a MK 103, which was also repeated in many books on the subject for decades.
By the way... the scientific way requires the proof that they did, not the other way around ;)
-
Lyric posted a link stating that the second production run of the 234B had the rear cannon. Did you miss that?
FYI lack of proof isn't proof of lack. ;)
-
Most of them didn't Butcher. Now prove that none of them did. You might also ask yourself why the AH version has them.
Stop grasping for straws because you got called out on a lie that has been longstanding and widespread (and you yourself didn't invest effort into researching directly).
Lyric did a fantastic job, so much so that - yes, he has prooven that since none (other than one or two pre-production (aka prototype) mock-ups) were ever manufactured/producd by the germans, it is physicaly/materialy impossible that they existed at any time, and in any form, in the theatre of combat. You can not have equiped what was never made.
The more Lyric has dug, the more information seems to be found to back up his conclusion. They never made production, plans were for them to be produced later and installed as they became available/distrubuted to units in the field. They (the post-production kits) were never made though. Captured 234 back this up, as provisions (wiring, they reversable telescope, etc.) were found for them, but the guns themselves were never there.
The forward mounted gun pods though I think did see some limited production (and use).
Lyric posted a link stating that the second production run of the 234B had the rear cannon. Did you miss that?
FYI lack of proof isn't proof of lack. ;)
"Provisions"
-
I think you mean to say that there is no evidence it's not true. If you think you know more about
WW2 aircraft than Jeff Ethel and Alfred Price that's your problem not mine.
Employed double negative. Fail.
Name dropping that means nothing. Double fail.
-
I'm not going to argue with uninformed idiots.
-
Probably for the Arcade aspect of aces high, same reason the P51D has both bombs and rockets.
Unlike the Ar234 having a rear gun, the P-51D did use rockets and bombs so that's not a really good analogy.
ack-ack
-
Unlike the Ar234 having a rear gun, the P-51D did use rockets and bombs so that's not a really good analogy.
ack-ack
500lbs and Rockets I can see happening, but I was strictly saying 1000lb and rockets.
The reason I pointed this out - I went through countless photos of P-51D's in action, I can see 75gal drop tanks and rockets, I can see 500lb bombs and rockets, but not 1000lb bombs and rockets.
-
The existence of photos is not a requirement in any case.
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/P51-l_r_tanks.jpg)
-
No serious publication claims this gun package was factory-installed nor used operationally, it's not even mentioned in Ar 234B aircraft manuals anymore.
But you never know what unit hacks were done to those aircraft, I even heard of He 219 with a MG 15 gun an a third crew member to protect the bottom rear area.
-
I'm just here to say how grateful I am for the type of people we have here. I bet some of you could write your own books.
-
the funny thing is the airplane gets used so little, it isn't worth the changing anything.
semp
-
the funny thing is the airplane gets used so little, it isn't worth the changing anything.
semp
BS. When it gets updated it needs to be changed anyways.
-
the funny thing is the airplane gets used so little, it isn't worth the changing anything.
semp
Well one person looses a 262 to a F3 mode IL-2.
F3 mode gone on IL-2.
Based off of that yes.
-
No serious publication claims this gun package was factory-installed nor used operationally, it's not even mentioned in Ar 234B aircraft manuals anymore.
But you never know what unit hacks were done to those aircraft, I even heard of He 219 with a MG 15 gun an a third crew member to protect the bottom rear area.
If that was the case we do have rules about field modifications.
-
Field mods are not production - so - they are not included (as far as I understand it). Otherwise there would be a lot more options for German planes.
I read Lyrics post. . . damn well researched and hard to top. I hope the Gods take a gander and consider revision.
As for the other points, I reiterate that i do agree with the removal of the formation option, and with the attack. . although it does create more fighter perk based planes and takes away a jet-bomber which could be a bad game policy.
-
The existence of photos is not a requirement in any case.
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/P51-l_r_tanks.jpg)
So you can't show any proof 51's had 1000lb bombs and rockets? Yes Photos are not a requirement, its simply proof it didn't happen.
-
So you can't show any proof 51's had 1000lb bombs and rockets? Yes Photos are not a requirement, its simply proof it didn't happen.
It could I think is the arguement/conclusion. Weather it actualy did or not, seeking absolute proof, will take a large investment of time into scanning through AARs or other documents/reports/logs that could/would contain information on actually loadouts used during combat in WWII. If one had to start anywhere though, I would wager my bet with the later pacific mustangs, they were probabley the heaviest laden for (long-range) ground support and escort missions. But again I would wager that's more paperwork to go through than vacation time I'll have in the next 2 years (if it exists).
I think it would be better to argue for a 10-rocket gun package, I haven't looked it up but I think it was the most the 51 could carry if it removed the larger pylons used for DTs and Bombs, but I forget if that was purely Korean era or not.
Given the capabilities of the P-38 and P-47 models though, I've never really understood why the 1000lbers + 6rkts P51 combo is such a curious issue in AH. In addition, it's not like the heavily laden mustangs don't suffer from their loadout selection.
-
Given the capabilities of the P-38 and P-47 models though, I've never really understood why the 1000lbers + 6rkts P51 combo is such a curious issue in AH. In addition, it's not like the heavily laden mustangs don't suffer from their loadout selection.
Its just another attempt to be clever. We know from photographs that Mustangs operated with thousand pounders and rockets in Korea which by implication alone... The absence of a photograph is not proof.
We know also from photographs that different squadrons had the larger fuel tanks (39th FS, 20th FG for instance) yet those are not allowed.
-
It could I think is the arguement/conclusion. Weather it actualy did or not, seeking absolute proof, will take a large investment of time into scanning through AARs or other documents/reports/logs that could/would contain information on actually loadouts used during combat in WWII. If one had to start anywhere though, I would wager my bet with the later pacific mustangs, they were probabley the heaviest laden for (long-range) ground support and escort missions. But again I would wager that's more paperwork to go through than vacation time I'll have in the next 2 years (if it exists).
I think it would be better to argue for a 10-rocket gun package, I haven't looked it up but I think it was the most the 51 could carry if it removed the larger pylons used for DTs and Bombs, but I forget if that was purely Korean era or not.
Given the capabilities of the P-38 and P-47 models though, I've never really understood why the 1000lbers + 6rkts P51 combo is such a curious issue in AH. In addition, it's not like the heavily laden mustangs don't suffer from their loadout selection.
I have a very extensive and large collection of AAR's and books concerning just about everything, those I have gone through show exactly that - Korean era P51's did carry rockets and bombs, however I cannot find any photo or AAR saying it carried it during WW2.
I take all my knowledge from these books, even AAR's you can't rely on entirely - for example I posted a humerous one a while back about the Marines on Midway and their AAR of the battle of midway. Some said the Zero were doing 450mph, etc however this is the kind of information that keeps me searching for more.
I enjoy researching specific details, like the 1000lb/rocket, however I have not come across any AAR's as of yet (then again I literally have thousands to go through), but I use the pictorials first since they can give away vital information like what squadron or such, it cuts down on the research time.
I rely 100% on facts, I go through two books and if both give me a general "Same answer" I have to believe this is the common grounds, I really have nothing else to go on, you can't look at wikipedia and say "oh yeah its here, this must be correct" I use everything I have to determine whats correct or not.
In the case of Lyric, showing the Ar-234 did not have rear guns, I have to absolutely agree - the books and AAR's I do have, do NOT show it having rear guns, might be one or two that did, however of all the photos taken, why don't none of them have rear guns?
There may not be any photos of the 51, however I just use pictures to "minimize" my research time - its a tool really, if I can see a 51 carrying 1,000lbs and rockets I can find out what squad it is, then go looking for AAR's specifically or buy the book on that squad so I can say "hey it did in fact carry it" and show the proof, otherwise as of right now I am completely against it .
-
"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Meaning that the burden of proof is opposite of your implication. This is exactly why Lyric has done his in depth research.
-
"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Meaning that the burden of proof is opposite of your implication. This is exactly why Lyric has done his in depth research.
where's the proof?
-
How often did a plane leave it's manufacturer with it's guns installed or not installed? if they were not installed when they got to the field but the mounts were built for them at the factory does this affect our longstanding policy of no field mods?
I am not going to argue either way, I want the front firing guns we have proof of, but just like the jug ammo load, what was used in the field was not necessarily what the factory limits allowed
and if a pony could carry 1000lbs bombs and rockets when it left the factory but didn't in the field for one reason or another, who are we to say it is incorrect while trying to adhere to the policy of factory spec'd correct?
how many B-25's were factory built with 75 MM guns in them?
It is a game,, I love that it brings out the best in some of us, and I have learned more about WW2 airplanes than I ever thought I would because of it,
Great research BTW on every ones side as best I can tell, but I would argue that first hand knowledge, from the pilots that flew them would be way more valuable than books written 50 to 60 years later! just my opinion
someone once told me P-38's never escorted B-29's, so I spent the better part of a month searching, to no avail ,,, till suddenly, there it was,, they did ! I posted it long ago, and it was a blast researching it, I couldn't find it now without probably another 2 weeks of looking, my point is, lack of proof, doesn't mean it didn't happen, proof means it did,
Another way of looking at this would be to understand the difference between the 234's that did carry them (C's are all we have proof of so far?) and the B that we have no proof of having carried them,, tho we know they were capable,, they had the mounts,
how different is the C model that did to the B model we have now? I read that some C's had 4 engines maybe? but some had 2? do we need to re name our 234 a C? and if so,, when will we be getting the twin 20MM alongside the pilot?
and lastly,, I am not worth a darn with the rear gun of the 234, If it goes, so be it,, if it stays great as well,, I have just been watching this for days and wanted to chime in I'll shut up now!
-
You are engaging in the argument of ambiguity through an "appeal in ignorance." You know that Mustangs flew in Korea with the same loadout that you want removed from WWII era aircraft while stating a lack of evidence that it actually flew that way during WWII. Feigning ignorance isnt helping your argument because the simplicity of the situation outweighs the complexity of the possibility not existing until Korea.
You need to come to understand the principle of Occam's Razor (perhaps) to understand that the burden of proof is on you. It is your extended list of assumptions that places doubt on the scenario. The principle being that the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is therefore the simplest explanation.
"It could and did at some point therefore it did earlier as well" versus "It could and did at some point and there are no pictures of it doing so earlier therefore it didnt earlier."
Besides... I have seen pictures of that loadout in photographs from WWII so you just dont own enough books. RE: easiest explanation.
-
Another way of looking at this would be to understand the difference between the 234's that did carry them (C's are all we have proof of so far?) and the B that we have no proof of having carried them,, tho we know they were capable,, they had the mounts,
how different is the C model that did to the B model we have now? I read that some C's had 4 engines maybe? but some had 2? do we need to re name our 234 a C? and if so,, when will we be getting the twin 20MM alongside the pilot?
C model is a very different aircraft all had 4 engines none had 2.
C model had forward firing guns as standard.
C model fuselage was not shaped the same as the B model.
C model never flew combat.
http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW10/Ar234C3-16f-s.jpg
-
Besides... I have seen pictures of that loadout in photographs from WWII so you just dont own enough books. RE: easiest explanation.
Quite possible could be true, however I am looking for source of information that's factual, not just "hear say"
And for your information, most of the books/AAR's/documents I have go back far as 1940s, I don't recall a single book written past 1975, nice attempt to troll however.
Edit I just found it, only 500lb bombs were used with 4 rockets per wing, not 6. Only when drop tanks were used (75gal) then 6 rockets were permitted, or 10x HVAR rockets and no drop tanks, Source? USAF.
I even have photos to go along with it.
(http://www.367thdynamitegang.com/upload/butch/bomb2.bmp)
(http://www.367thdynamitegang.com/upload/butch/bombs.bmp)
-
"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Meaning that the burden of proof is opposite of your implication. This is exactly why Lyric has done his in depth research.
You have it backwards. It actually means that no evidence of guns on the 234b doesn't mean they didn't have guns. It just means you don't have the evidence. It's not implication it's logic. The funny thing is Lyric posted the evidence, you all just missed it.
-
I support either the reduction of the P-51D's loadout or the increase of the Mosquito Mk VI's. I can find photos of the Mossie with four rockets and a droptank under each wing. Drop tanks and the 500lb underwing bombs used the same mounting point.
:P
-
I support either the reduction of the P-51D's loadout or the increase of the Mosquito Mk VI's. I can find photos of the Mossie with four rockets and a droptank under each wing. Drop tanks and the 500lb underwing bombs used the same mounting point.
:P
The Typhoon was upgraded recently with its correct armaments, I would argue both P51 and mossy need to be upgraded as other aircraft that need it.
-
:noid Chuwie and vDallas will not be happy. :devil
-
http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Arado:Ar:234.html
Ar-234B-2 configured as bomber
Description
Role Bomber
Crew One, pilot
First Flight
Manufacturer Arado
Dimensions
Length 12.6 m 41 ft 6 in
Wingspan 14.1 m 46 ft 4 in
Height 4.3 m 14 ft 1 in
Wing area 26.4 m² 284 ft²
Weights
Empty 5,200 kg 11,464 lb
Loaded
Maximum takeoff 9,850 kg 21,715 lb
Powerplant
Engines 2x Junkers Jumo 004B-1 turbojets
Thrust 18 kN 4091 lb
Performance
Maximum speed 742 km/h 461 mph
Combat range 800 km 500 miles
Service ceiling 10,000 m 32,810 ft
Rate of climb 762 m/min 2,500 ft/min
Wing loading kg/m² lb/ft²
Thrust/Weight
Avionics
Avionics
Armament
Guns 2x 20 mm MG 151
rearward firing, not always fitted
Bombs 2x 500 kg (1,100 lb)
or 1x 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) or 1x 1,400 kg (3,180 lb)
2 Ar 234B
The RLM had already seen the promise of the design and in July had asked Arado to supply two prototypes of a bomber version as the Ar 234B. Since the aircraft was very slender and entirely filled with fuel tanks, there was no room for a bomb bay and the warload had to be carried on external racks. The added weight and drag reduced the speed to "catchable" so a set of 20 mm guns was added to a tail stinger for defence. Since the pilot had no view to the rear they had to be aimed through a periscope. The system was generally considered useless and many pilots had the guns removed.
also the 234c-8 was proposed with 2 engines tho I don't know if any were ever built it
-
http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Arado:Ar:234.html
[...]
That's basically just a copy of the Wikipedia article. :)
-
That's basically just a copy of the Wikipedia article. :)
Arado Ar 234 Blitz3 Arado Ar 234B-21,2,3,4 Arado Ar 234C3
Type Bomber3, Reconnaissance3 Bomber1,2,4, Reconnaissance1
Crew 13 11,2,4
Engine (Type) 2: Junkers Jumo 004B turbojets3 2: BMW 003A-1 turbojets2
2: Junkers Jumo 004 B4
2: Junkers Jumo 004B-1 Orkan turbojets1 4: BMW 003A turbojets3
Thrust - BMW 1,764 lb2
7.85 kN2 1,760 lb3
7.9 kN3
Thrust - Junkers 1,980 lb3
8.9 kN3 1,975 lb1, 1,980 lb4
8.8 kN1
Dimensions
Span 46 3.5"3
14.11 m3 46'1, 46' 3"4, 46' 3.5"2
14.44 m1,2
Length 41' 5.5"3
12.64 m3 41'1, 41' 5.5"2, 41' 6"4
12.64 m1,2
Height 14' 1.25"3
4.3 m3 14'1, 14' 1"4, 14' 1.5"2
4.29 m1,2
Wing area 284.17 ft2 2, 294 ft2 1
27.3 m2 1,2
Weight
Empty 11,440 lb1, 11,464 lb2,3
5,200 kg2,3, 5,300 kg1
Normal load 18,540 lb3, 18,541 lb4
8,410 kg3
Loaded 21,560 lb1, 21,6052, 21,715 lb3
9,800 kg1,2, 9,850 kg3
Performance
Speed @ 19,685' /
6,000 m 461 mph2,4
742 kph2
Speed @ 20,000' /
6,000 m 460 mph1
742 kph1
Speed @ 26,250' /
8,000 m 460 mph3
740 kph3
Speed @ 32,810' /
10,000 m 435 mph3
700 kph3
Climb to 19,685' /
6,000 m 12.8 minutes3 12.8 minutes2
Service ceiling 32,810'3
10,000 m3 32,810'2, 33,000'1,4
10,000 m1,2
Range 1,013 miles3
1,630 km3 1,010 miles1, 1,013 miles2, 1,103 miles4
1,630 km1,2
Range with max bomb load 684 miles3
1,100 km3
Armament
Rear firing 2: 20 mm3 2: 20 mm MG 1514
Bombs 3,307 lb3
1,500 kg3 3,300 lb4, 4,400 lb1, 4,409 lb2
1,995 kg1, 2,000 kg2
Sources:
1 Aircraft of WWII, General Editor: Jim Winchester, 2004
2 Fighting Aircraft of World War II, Editor: Karen Leverington, 1995
3 Aircraft of WWII, Stewart Wilson, 1998
4 World War II Airplanes Volume 1, Enzo Angelucci, Paolo Matricardi, 1976
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/aircraft/bomber/arado-ar-234.asp
Arado Ar 234 Blitz3 Arado Ar 234B-2
Armament
Rear firing 2: 20 mm3 2: 20 mm MG 1514
of the 270 or so built how many were accounted for? and is there proof that not one had a gun in it?
-
Prove it. There is no evidence that is true. None.
LOL that won't matter to him .
-
Most of them didn't Butcher. Now prove that none of them did. You might also ask yourself why the AH version has them.
Prove a negative ?
-
I'm not going to argue with uninformed idiots.
Personal attacks ? FLS are you ever right ? If you ever had an original thought it died of loneliness .
-
Prove it. There is no evidence that is true. None.
Absence of Evidence in not Evidence of Absense.
I agree with adding the forward guns option, but
If you dont want rear guns on the 234, dont include them in TAS
:rofl :bolt: :bolt: :bolt:
-
You have it backwards. It actually means that no evidence of guns on the 234b doesn't mean they didn't have guns. It just means you don't have the evidence. It's not implication it's logic. The funny thing is Lyric posted the evidence, you all just missed it.
Ha! FLS you are failing terribly. We have evidence that Lyric has found through thorough research that the aircraft never had guns. The C-model had them but never saw combat.
Yes you are well versed in the appeal to ignorance but since that approach has been revealed it wont work. Now you are simply beating a dead horse.
-
Absence of Evidence in not Evidence of Absense.
I agree with adding the forward guns option, but
If you dont want rear guns on the 234, dont include them in TAS
:rofl :bolt: :bolt: :bolt:
You first! Tell us how old you are! 13? Where do you live? Have any children? Is grey matter of limited quantity in your family?
I think so. Bolt from that you twit!
I think its absolutely hillarious that this accusation has been proven to be false time and time again and yet there are still children so stupid as to repeat it! Morons!
-
Nice tantrum. :rolleyes:
-
Alright Ranger. Lets say someone spreads a falsehood about you! Prove who you are! They lie over and over and it only gets to be bigger and bigger lies as it continues. Tell me who you are! Tell us all about you! How old are you? Show us your picture! Oh! Hey! Your wife looks like you bought her online! Real class from some of these clowns!
Real cheap shots and all because of one malcontent that we told couldnt reenter our squadron.
Yes. Your comment shows a real maturity too.
-
And for your information, most of the books/AAR's/documents I have go back far as 1940s, I don't recall a single book written past 1975, nice attempt to troll however.
Hyperbolic euphemisms will not prive your point either. You are simplay attempting to be clever (I would say 'cute'). Fail.
-
Some 234's did have the cannons mounted and that's why we have them in Aces High.
Well lets play devils advocate here.
Lets assume that there was "Some" AR-234B's that had rear facing guns.
I seem to recall there is AHII criteria for skins to be included in the game along the lines of it had to be in squadron strength & had to see service in WWII.
This standard if I recall correctly has been used a few times on threads regarding various issues for inclusion beyond just skins.
So did rear facing guns on the Arado AR-234B ever make it to squadron strength?
Did rear guns on the Arado AR-234B see service in WWII?
I think if that standard could be met for AHII there may be an argument for inclusion.
However it seems most think that only "Some" AR-234B's had rear facing guns.
:devil Advocate off.
I still say no B model ever carried rear guns.
-
I like how you resort to name calling when someone doesn't agree with you :rolleyes:..... Are you 13???????? :cry
:aok :aok :huh :headscratch: :x :headscratch: :neener:
NOT
-
Well lets play devils advocate here.
Lets assume that there was "Some" AR-234B's that had rear facing guns.
I seem to recall there is AHII criteria for skins to be included in the game along the lines of it had to be in squadron strength & had to see service in WWII.
This standard if I recall correctly has been used a few times on threads regarding various issues for inclusion beyond just skins.
So did rear facing guns on the Arado AR-234B ever make it to squadron strength?
Did rear guns on the Arado AR-234B see service in WWII?
I think if that standard could be met for AHII there may be an argument for inclusion.
However it seems most think that only "Some" AR-234B's had rear facing guns.
:devil Advocate off.
I still say no B model ever carried rear guns.
Let's say that 234B's came from the factory with the guns which explains the mounts and holes in the fuselage and the pilots had the guns pulled because the weight wasn't worth their limited effectiveness and getting the airplane off the ground was already so difficult they needed JATO rockets. That makes the removed guns a field mod which is not allowed in Aces High. Steel was a strategic material in short supply. They wouldn't build unused gun mounts into all the 234Bs, that's just silly, but any pilot will tell you that when weight makes takeoff a problem you dump whatever weight you can.
Also, Smith and Creek are professional writers who repackage old material in shiny new books. Price is a primary reference for everybody writing about German aircraft in WW2. Don't forget that Price's job for the RAF in 1945 was interviewing everybody available involved in designing, building, and flying the new jet aircraft.
-
I like the Arado. Love it actually. The designers really knew what they were doing! But I have a few problems with it as it is.
1) The Arado never had rear facing cannons. I fly this plane. I fly it without the cannons. It doesnt need them.
2) The Arado never flew in formations. Formations should be removed for this aircraft. It doesnt need them and the formations are only there for scoring. With the survivability of this plane it can make multiple trips just fine.
3) The Arado is not a bomber. The Arado is an attacker. I understand about the level bomber role being a possibility since the function was there to unstrap and use the sight and bomb. I also understand it was never done that way. The Arado was most often (I woud say always) used as a dive bomber (attack).
So this is a three way wish. Remove the guns. Remove formations. Add an attack role.
Add forward facing gunpods if you wish. :D
:salute
point 1
thay did!
point 2
thay did mayby not as close as in game but it was mostly not used in singel mode in the Kampfgeschwader.
point 3
in game and more in reality it isnt / wasn t a good idea to made a dive attack in that plane. it was primary designed as a level bomber. ;)
sure with some skill you can do everything with that but thats not the way it is desingend for.
at the attack of Lütich thay start a dive from 4000m to 2000meters in a small angela at the end thay was fast enough to be save and thay dropp in level flight.
sure there was some other desings of that plane with forward firing cannos, this version could be named as an attacker.
cu christian
-
Hyperbolic euphemisms will not prive your point either. You are simplay attempting to be clever (I would say 'cute'). Fail.
Whatever you are smoking, I just proved the P-51D, you show no claim otherwise.
-
Asking people to prove that it didn't have the cannons is unrealistic. It is very hard, impossible in most cases, to prove a negative. What is a lot easier is to prove a positive. So it therefore falls to the "It had cannons" side to prove it. No evidence has been found to support that position yet, so go off and find it. I see some blithe statements such as chris3 saying "point 1, thay did!" Well, if it is that easy for you to know with the certainty of that statement, chris3, surely you can supply the data, no?
-
So your theory is that it was designed for cannon, the periscope was mounted and designed to allow aiming the aircraft to shoot the cannon, the cannon mountings were installed in the aircraft, the holes for the barrels and ejected shells were installed, but the cannon themselves were never installed in any aircraft?
(http://www.mediafire.com/conv/a56c47827448b9c8adfe9cc1659c749925bd44fd16bedca98f00d27fe72bbd906g.jpg) (http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?thumb=6&quickkey=15613xn194n17i6)
And Alfred Price, who was in the RAF, and who was tasked in 1945 with finding out everything he could about German jet aircraft, is not the authority on this subject, even though he is one of the few people who talked to the designers, builders, and pilots of these aircraft?
I guess we'll agree to disagree. :D
-
Let's say that 234B's came from the factory with the guns which explains the mounts and holes in the fuselage and the pilots had the guns pulled because the weight wasn't worth their limited effectiveness and getting the airplane off the ground was already so difficult they needed JATO rockets. That makes the removed guns a field mod which is not allowed in Aces High. Steel was a strategic material in short supply. They wouldn't build unused gun mounts into all the 234Bs, that's just silly, but any pilot will tell you that when weight makes takeoff a problem you dump whatever weight you can.
Also, Smith and Creek are professional writers who repackage old material in shiny new books. Price is a primary reference for everybody writing about German aircraft in WW2. Don't forget that Price's job for the RAF in 1945 was interviewing everybody available involved in designing, building, and flying the new jet aircraft.
Holes in the aircraft for the guns & shell chutes is the problem on the B model no evidence of any B model has these holes.
Check out what a Rustsatz is & how it is applicable to the AR-234.
When you find out the facts on those you will realise that your premise is impossible.
Back to the question at hand.
:devil Advocate on.
Did any AR-234B with rear guns see service in WWII?
Did the AR-234B rear guns make it to squadron strength?
-
So your theory is that it was designed for cannon, the periscope was mounted and designed to allow aiming the aircraft to shoot the cannon, the cannon mountings were installed in the aircraft, the holes for the barrels and ejected shells were installed, but the cannon themselves were never installed in any aircraft?
(http://www.mediafire.com/conv/a56c47827448b9c8adfe9cc1659c749925bd44fd16bedca98f00d27fe72bbd906g.jpg) (http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?thumb=6&quickkey=15613xn194n17i6)
And Alfred Price, who was in the RAF, and who was tasked in 1945 with finding out everything he could about German jet aircraft, is not the authority on this subject, even though he is one of the few people who talked to the designers, builders and pilots of these aircraft?
I guess we'll agree to disagree. :D
All the data found thus far supports the position that the Ar234B did not have rear facing cannons. The image you linked there is not useful as it doesn't have any supporting data to back it up. There is no footnote to a primary source.
-
You guys are just being silly now. Lyric posted 3 different sources saying some 234B's had guns in the other thread.
I only copied the one he claimed referred to the 234C since that was the most egregious error. If you think anyone
proved that none had the guns you are mistaken.
Edit: I went through the thread again and counted 7 published sources Lyric posted saying that some B models had the guns.
-
You guys are just being silly now. Lyric posted 3 different sources saying some 234B's had guns in the other thread.
I only copied the one he claimed referred to the 234C since that was the most egregious error. If you think anyone
proved that none had the guns you are mistaken.
Did he? I didn't see any. What you posted wasn't a valid source either. That leaves two, per your claim.
-
Did he? I didn't see any.
I'm not surprised. :lol
Edit: I was being too hard on Smith and Creek. Smith is a respected historian but I'd like to see
his explanation if there was a change in different versions of his book.
Lyric posted 7 published references to guns in some 234B models as well as Arado documents of the bomber version with guns.
I think that's enough to keep an open mind on the subject.
-
I'm not surprised. :lol
Edit: I was being too hard on Smith and Creek. Smith is a respected historian but I'd like to see
his explanation if there was a change in different versions of his book.
Lyric posted 7 published references to guns in some 234B models as well as Arado documents of the bomber version with guns.
I think that's enough to keep an open mind on the subject.
Please explain why primary source aircraft manuals do not show a single word of an alleged MG 151 gun package, neither for removal nor installation as Rüstsatz ?!?
Counting only on one author while ignoring others is dangerous, do you remember the "inventions" of William Green, a formerly respected author of the 1960s/70s. MG 151 as cowl guns in the Bf 109 K-4 and other never existing beasts?
-
Please explain why primary source aircraft manuals do not show a single word of an alleged MG 151 gun package, neither for removal nor installation as Rüstsatz ?!?
Counting only on one author while ignoring others is dangerous, do you remember the "inventions" of William Green, a formerly respected author of the 1960s/70s. MG 151 as cowl guns in the Bf 109 K-4 and other never existing beasts?
One reason would be that the manuals are for the earlier production models without the guns. Every source that mentions the guns states that they were on some later production models. It's likely that they would try that first if they planned on putting them on all the C models. In any case those manuals don't look like original scans.
Only 1 of the 7 mentions of rear guns that Lyric posted is from Price. Of course it's possible that everybody else copied him.
Why are there Arado technical drawings showing a B model bomber with the guns where the recon model has cameras?
Lyric posted a lot of good information but it includes information that some B models had guns mounted.
-
The 12/44 manual (data from 12/44, released 12/44) lists a lot of equipment present in the Ar 234 but no MG 151, it shows instructions to install the cameras but again, no instruction to remove MG 151 or fittings prepared to hold MG 151.
There are a lot of Arado drawings in "Luffahrt Dokumente LD21" and almost all of them note a plan to install a MG 151 package. But all these drawing are from the Arado planning department and not found in official docs/manuals. A 12/44 drawing shows a B-1 recon with a rear-firing MG 151 underfuselage pod while B-2 and C-series plans state either "Einbau MG 151 rüstsatzmäßig vorgesehen" (MG 151 installation planned via upgrade kit) or "Raum für MG 151 starr nach hinten ist vorgesehen" (space for rear firing MG 151 is planned).
Such a rear firing device is already seen in 1943 plans/drawings so why isn't it listed in a 12/1944 manual if it was available or planned to be available soon?
-
One reason would be that the manuals are for the earlier production models without the guns. Every source that mentions the guns states that they were on some later production models. It's likely that they would try that first if they planned on putting them on all the C models. In any case those manuals don't look like original scans.
Lyric posted a lot of good information but it includes information that some B models had guns mounted.
Yes I have sources that say rear guns were fitted.
One of those books in fact says they don't have rear guns & few pages later they say they do? In that case the book written was based off of other books listed as his sources. The author was so busy quoting every one else he did not even realise he contradicts himself in his own book.
As I pointed out in the other thread Author's wrote a book & then years later totally changed their minds :headscratch: Why would authors totally contradict themselves from one edition to the next on the same titled book?
Maybe they dug a little deeper & found out something they didn't know from established Dogma?
That is why I have bought so many to find the truth & will buy more to do so.
Your one source Jeff Ethel and Alfred Price's book has all the facts correct with regards to the AR-234B from your perspective.
Since my sources are lacking the facts & this thread is partially about removing rear guns.
I will play :devil advocate again.
Please show me from Jeff Ethel and Alfred Price's book the information needed to warrant inclusion.
Because all my books either say yes they had them & no they didn't have them.
I have evidence for exclusion of rear guns. :aok
I just don't have any evidence needed to meet AHII inclusion if the skin criteria is correct for ordnance inclusion.
Did the AR-234B with rear guns serve in squadron strength?
Did any AR-234B with rear guns see service during WWII?
-
It's possible the author you refer too didn't contradict himself. I can only guess without seeing the full text. You really have to have the author tell you why there was a change in the text or accept that you're just guessing. If 2 books disagree it doesn't automatically follow that the last one printed is correct. Sometimes books are not properly proof read or edited. Record keeping in Germany near the end of the war wasn't always accurate. It's not uncommon to find conflicting information and it can be hard to put documents in the proper context when you only have a few of them.
The ferry pilot you linked was accepted by some as proof but he only proved that the planes he ferried had no rear guns and we don't know if they were fitted later or if he simply didn't ferry the few B models referred to in several books as having guns mounted. You posted one account of an early B model on the way to have guns fitted. It seems unlikely that they gave up on guns after that then changed their minds again for the C model which was faster and had less need of rear guns.
At this point we have no definitive proof of the number of Arado 234B aircraft with rear guns mounted whether that number is 0 or higher.
-
Are there any after war interviews with Arado combat pilots to at least verify if the guns were added as field kits, or never mounted?
-
The ferry pilot you linked was accepted by some as proof but he only proved that the planes he ferried had no rear guns and we don't know if they were fitted later or if he simply didn't ferry the few B models referred to in several books as having guns mounted.
So at what point did the gun loaded AR-234B's roll out of the factory based off of his statement?
"In December, 1944, they called me up to fly the Arado 234, the jet bomber. It was originally a reconnaissance plane but then they switched it over to a bomber. So that’s what I did until the end of the war, ferrying Arado 234’s from the factory to different places where they installed optical equipment, bombing equipment, etc. I flew the first one on Dec 12, 1944, from Hamburg to Kampfgeschwader 76 and the last on May 1st 1945.”
http://www.evanflys.com/willi_kriessmann
WWII ended a week later.
The Allies had captured the plant in early May. Hence the reason we have photos of C models with rear guns as they were found in hangars.
So you have a one week window of opportunity to make your case of rear facing guns on Arado AR-234B's if they were fitted later.
-
The Typhoon was upgraded recently with its correct armaments, I would argue both P51 and mossy need to be upgraded as other aircraft that need it.
Many will cry "Nerf", but I for one would LOVE a 10-rocket option.
-
Typhoons also had a 12 rocket loadout that was used operationally.
-
So at what point did the gun loaded AR-234B's roll out of the factory based off of his statement?
"In December, 1944, they called me up to fly the Arado 234, the jet bomber. It was originally a reconnaissance plane but then they switched it over to a bomber. So that’s what I did until the end of the war, ferrying Arado 234’s from the factory to different places where they installed optical equipment, bombing equipment, etc. I flew the first one on Dec 12, 1944, from Hamburg to Kampfgeschwader 76 and the last on May 1st 1945.”
http://www.evanflys.com/willi_kriessmann
WWII ended a week later.
The Allies had captured the plant in early May. Hence the reason we have photos of C models with rear guns as they were found in hangars.
So you have a one week window of opportunity to make your case of rear facing guns on Arado AR-234B's if they were fitted later.
Based on that statement the guns would have been loaded elsewhere along with the optical and bombing equipment. Note in this post of yours that the guns were to be fitted at another site.
(http://www.mediafire.com/conv/c9d7765a7c3b958e007771128b4cfc4dc8578ac951b09a139d90fb28c53305ca4g.jpg) (http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?thumb=5&quickkey=40tn00r5eh6xa1s)
-
Based on that statement the guns would have been loaded elsewhere along with the optical and bombing equipment. Note in this post of yours that the guns were to be fitted at another site.
(http://www.mediafire.com/conv/c9d7765a7c3b958e007771128b4cfc4dc8578ac951b09a139d90fb28c53305ca4g.jpg) (http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?thumb=5&quickkey=40tn00r5eh6xa1s)
You still did not read about Rüstsatz & how it applies to the AR-234B series did you?
Yes I posted that & yes it says that guns were fitted in that book & other sources at different sites.
The best part of this aircraft V9 it is very very well documented.
So here we go.
Find a single picture of this very aircraft V9 PH+SQ fitted with rear guns.
Find me a photo of V9 fitted with a periscope?
I mean for the pilot to shoot backwards he needed a periscope to see who was behind him right?
Also even if it did get fitted & it didn't.
It was a prototype never used in combat never sent to a squadron plus it was not an AR-234-B2 model it was an AR-234-B model.
I would post all the pictures I have on this plane but I wont as there is just to many to scan & copy.
I will post this snippet of information though.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/img023.jpg)
Another example of old books being wrong & newer books with evidence saying otherwise.
If my books are in question watch the plane on video find a periscope find rear guns.
Go to the 23 minute 51 second mark the aircraft is clearly shown.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O_jcI4fQVw
All of that aside MR Kreissmanns job was in part to take those aircraft to those plants to be fitted with hardware.
That would include guns under your premise if they were fitted.
He says.
"The Arado had no weapons"
-
It still shows that aircraft were flown to other locations to have that equipment fitted.
If the book was wrong about that particular aircraft that says nothing about the production aircraft
and your ferry pilot link states that he flew the aircraft without guns to where the final equipment was fitted.
Maybe it reads differently in German but I assume he's talking about his personal experience.
The problem with the video is that we don't know that date it was filmed. It could have been filmed prior to equipment being installed.
The 2 Arado's taking off afterwards had the periscope but you can't read the fuselage ID. I expect they're different a/c but the point is
that you have a date for equipment being added and no date for the video.
As to the Rüstsatz those appear to be packages to convert the bomber to other roles not to convert the airframe to the bomber roll.
You are clearly convinced that none of them had guns, I'm OK with that, you may be correct, but I don't see compelling evidence.
-
It still shows that aircraft were flown to other locations to have that equipment fitted.
If the book was wrong about that particular aircraft that says nothing about the production aircraft
and your ferry pilot link states that he flew the aircraft without guns to where the final equipment was fitted.
Maybe it reads differently in German but I assume he's talking about his personal experience.
The problem with the video is that we don't know that date it was filmed. It could have been filmed prior to equipment being installed.
The 2 Arado's taking off afterwards had the periscope but you can't read the fuselage ID. I expect they're different a/c but the point is
that you have a date for equipment being added and no date for the video.
As to the Rüstsatz those appear to be packages to convert the bomber to other roles not to convert the airframe to the bomber roll.
You are clearly convinced that none of them had guns, I'm OK with that, you may be correct, but I don't see compelling evidence.
As I said we shall agree to disagree. :aok
-
As I said we shall agree to disagree. :aok
Interesting thread. :cheers:
-
Weight and balance seems to indicate that our 234 should be tail heavy when it has the guns installed.
I will repeat my wish/request in August. :salute
-
The periscope is not directly related to rear guns, as the Ar 234 had almost nil view to the rear it was required to spot enemy aircraft closing-in from the rear.
And please do not assume an installation in production aircraft if this system was tested in a prototype - lots of weapon kits were only found in protos but were never used in prod a/c.
In 1944 it was not uncommon to produce the basic aircraft in assembly plants and to fly it to equipment centers to install special bomb, recon or other equipment for its designated combat role. So the assembly plant could concentrate on churning out as many a/c as possible while the equipment centers were used to fit special stuff.
-
Perked ord system would be perfect for this situation.
-
Might also help bombers take over as the main heavy lifters again.
-
Perked ord system would be perfect for this situation.
:headscratch:
Explain what situation?
-
The situation where fighter pilots carry ord? I think it should be automatic on fighters that choose ord that the category goes automatically to attack. No self-respecting fighter pilot willingly chooses to carry ord... ever.
Insisting on perk costs is just silly. :headscratch:
-
The situation where fighter pilots carry ord? I think it should be automatic on fighters that choose ord that the category goes automatically to attack. No self-respecting fighter pilot willingly chooses to carry ord... ever.
Insisting on perk costs is just silly. :headscratch:
I disagree. Ords should cost something. If this game is a war simulator then costs for fuel , ords, and ac/gv all should have a cost
The cost should be higher for the side that has numbers.
Edit : I do however agree with you wanting the most accurate representation for ac.
-
I disagree. Ords should cost something. If this game is a war simulator then costs for fuel , ords, and ac/gv all should have a cost
The cost should be higher for the side that has numbers.
Edit : I do however agree with you wanting the most accurate representation for ac.
I believe they do have a cost . In performance .
-
:headscratch:
Explain what situation?
This situation. The situation in which we currently are involved with.
Spelling it out, if there is evidence both ways, perk the guns and leave them on.
-
There isnt any evidence the guns ever flew on a 234. Go through all of Lyrics evidence. Ignore FLS as he is just making it up as he goes.
-
There isnt any evidence the guns ever flew on a 234. Go through all of Lyrics evidence. Ignore FLS as he is just making it up as he goes.
Reading is fundamental.
-
There isnt any evidence the guns ever flew on a 234. Go through all of Lyrics evidence. Ignore FLS as he is just making it up as he goes.
Plenty of conflicting evidence that I see.
-
Plenty of conflicting evidence that I see.
Not really, newer records/documentation as presented by Lyric in these threads shows they were never found on any destroyed or captured examples. Confusing, huh?
-
moin
this picture shows you the bombervariant with rearfiring canons.
(http://1.2.3.11/bmi/www.flugzeuginfo.net/acimages/ar234b_bystronski_t.jpg)
cu christian
-
Wait, so let me get this strait (haven't been following the topic that closely for a while). Theres no solid evidence to support the Mg 151/20's on the Ar 234B?
-
moin
this picture shows you the bombervariant with rearfiring canons.
(http://1.2.3.11/bmi/www.flugzeuginfo.net/acimages/ar234b_bystronski_t.jpg)
cu christian
It does?
(http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acimages/ar234b_bystronski_t.jpg)
-
moin
this picture shows you the bombervariant with rearfiring canons.
(http://1.2.3.11/bmi/www.flugzeuginfo.net/acimages/ar234b_bystronski_t.jpg)
cu christian
That's the aircraft at NASM. It doesn't have guns mounted.
Nice Grunau Baby hanging behind it.
-
moin
maybe the museum bird do not have the guns any more, but if you see the periscope on the pilot cupola you see that these bird originaly should have the guns.
cu christian
-
Several different books state that only some of the bombers had the guns mounted, most of the bombers with the periscope did not have the guns mounted.
-
The F3 view is NOT like the periscope view. It shows you way to much. Do you really think the Luft Pilot staring through a reverse image periscope would be able to then deftly maneuver his aircraft to a gun solution. Hardly, at best it would have given him a hint on when to fire.
Absurd.
You maybe on to something here?
Actual rear view photo through an AR-234B periscope (minus the aircraft).
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/Aradorearviewperiscope1.gif)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/Aradorearviewperiscope.gif)
-
Several different books state that only some of the bombers had the guns mounted, most of the bombers with the periscope did not have the guns mounted.
moin
jes thats true, but the reson for that was that the the squadrouns were not able to get much of these rüstsätze as thay need, keep in mind it was the end of war and all the spezial equipment was hard to get. its was just a logistical problem.
in that case you can say the 262 should carry less 30mm rounds because in reality it happens often that thay were not able to put in the full amount of amunition. its just logistical problems.
cu christian
-
The periscope is not an indicator for installed rear guns, that's something required to have a minimal rear view in the Ar 234.
-
You maybe on to something here?
Actual rear view photo through an AR-234B periscope (minus the aircraft).
It would be interesting to know the field of view and if the picture shows the proper eye relief.
-
It would be interesting to know the field of view and if the picture shows the proper eye relief.
Can't find that specific info however looking at the the padded eye piece I would say the pilot would have had his eye pressed hard up against it.
If he didn't with the vibration & movement of the aircraft he would have a hard time bombing accurately IMHO?
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/Fl2052392_6.gif)
Interestingly this padded eye piece & lens is missing on the periscope at the Smithsonian? Or maybe just painted in the above picture?
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234peri2.jpg)
-
I was asking if the photo showed the proper eye relief. Normally you would see a sharp edge instead of the blurred circle in the photo so the field of view may be wider than it appears in the photo. The description I've read of the periscope use for the rear guns stated that the pilot could steer the guns normally towards the aircraft in the scope because the image was reversed as if in a mirror. This would not be desirable when pointing forward so the image must have reversed when the scope was rotated forward to back.
It seems obvious to me that the guns had to point back along the flight path in order for the periscope to target the bandit instead of being angled down where the bandit is masked by the fuselage.
-
I was asking if the photo showed the proper eye relief. Normally you would see a sharp edge instead of the blurred circle in the photo so the field of view may be wider than it appears in the photo. The description I've read of the periscope use for the rear guns stated that the pilot could steer the guns normally towards the aircraft in the scope because the image was reversed as if in a mirror. This would not be desirable when pointing forward so the image must have reversed when the scope was rotated forward to back.
It seems obvious to me that the guns had to point back along the flight path in order for the periscope to target the bandit instead of being angled down where the bandit is masked by the fuselage.
The image may or may not apply to the PV1B head.
For a fact it was for the RF2C forward & rear view but no PV1B rear view is shown in any of the documents I have.
As far as guns pointing directions are concerned only documents I have all say downwards pointing.
With all the information I now have on the PV1B head they do mention it was designed for rear facing guns.
Yet with all that is there with how to bomb on the forward view there is no mention at all how to sight guns with the rear views.
Even the pilots hand book that I now have makes no mention of rear guns & how to use the PV1B head for shooting.
It only talks about the forward view & the BZA & how to bomb with it.
-
I was asking if the photo showed the proper eye relief. Normally you would see a sharp edge instead of the blurred circle in the photo so the field of view may be wider than it appears in the photo.
May not have been focused at all when the photo was taken & that may explain the blurry image?
There is a collar for adjustment as seen in this drawing I think #62?
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/peripvb1b.jpg)
-
The reason the view is blurry is because the focal length of the camera lens could not adjust down to the distance required to take the image with proper focus.
EDIT: The reason this is impractical for gunnery is that the scope itself needs to one type (magnifying) for bombing and another type (collimator) for gunning.
-
I like the Arado. Love it actually. The designers really knew what they were doing! But I have a few problems with it as it is.
1) The Arado never had rear facing cannons. I fly this plane. I fly it without the cannons. It doesnt need them.
Then how do you kill 262's?
-
Then how do you kill 262's?
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b1-2.jpg)
Or :headscratch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXh1tW16V-8
-
It seems obvious to me that the guns had to point back along the flight path in order for the periscope to target the bandit instead of being angled down where the bandit is masked by the fuselage.
Found this ME-110 document with it's static test firing results with a periscope & rear firing guns it is 32 pages long & in German.
So I am just going to show the high lights.
I have not translated all of the text in this document as there is a lot. If I am wrong on any of this let me know & if you can read German I will forward the entire copy to who ever wants it.
Front cover.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/110rearjpgd-1.jpg)
One of the photos taken of the rear guns.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/rear110gunsb-1.jpg)
Horizontal firing elevation.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/rear110gunsc-1.jpg)
Measurements off of the centerline of aircraft to the periscope & guns. Periscope then to rear firing guns.
From the horizontal guns to bullet trajectory.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/rear110guns-1.jpg)
Another graph showing the same information.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/rear110gunsa-1.jpg)
This caught me by surprise :headscratch: Mounted horizontal guns firing in a 239.3cm arc or 94.2 inches back to 400M.
Then at a range of 650 meters they fall back to the line of sight of 0 of the periscope.
Where have I seen this before?
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/500yardsar234.jpg)
The test firings I did with the AHII AR-234 & the above image was at 500 yards.
So based off of the 110 results it looks like the Arado guns are programmed correctly to shoot up & back & now that we can see that the periscope on the Arado had adjustment knobs as well to change the angle of the RF2C periscope.
They could adjust accordingly for targeting.
Still why is there reports from the Allies who looked at the captured AR-234's & said the guns were facing down :headscratch:
Looking at the 110 a little closer may have the answers?
First off why do the bullets arc upwards from a horizontal firing position?
This type of gun & bullet ballistics characteristics,turbulence from the wake of the aircraft?
Frankly I have no idea? Some one with better knowledge on this will have to chime in here.
They could not angle the 110 guns upwards in their mounts as it would just about shoot it's own tail off when fired.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Arado%20AR-234/110rearjpgc2.jpg)
So is it just possible that the downward facing guns of the Arado is correct? Arado blueprints indicate that they did.
Captured aircraft reports say they did.
But why?
May be the 20mm ballistics arced so high on the horizontal that they were useless. Maybe the danger of shooting of it's own tail?
With a little down angle however to begin with this might have helped with the arc?
The upward pattern certainly would have helped with visibility through the periscope since the aircraft would not obscure the view as much.
All speculation on my part at this point.
:headscratch: Would be nice though to have the static firing results on the AR-234B.
There is only a brief bit on the C model static tests that I could find.
-
If you remove rear 20mms, this is no longer possible:
http://www.mediafire.com/?lxaltv6x3h2wzbl (http://www.mediafire.com/?lxaltv6x3h2wzbl)
-
If you remove rear 20mms, this is no longer possible:
http://www.mediafire.com/?lxaltv6x3h2wzbl (http://www.mediafire.com/?lxaltv6x3h2wzbl)
Yep should send Tracers this link. :D
-
Lyric the shells go where the gun is pointed. If the guns shoot up 1.6 inches at 15 ft they don't need to be angled up very much and won't hit the tail.
-
Lyric the shells go where the gun is pointed. If the guns shoot up 1.6 inches at 15 ft they don't need to be angled up very much and won't hit the tail.
That is not what the document states.
Mündungswaagerechte = horizontal plane
-
That is the horizontal plane and it's from the trajectory you posted.
-
That is the horizontal plane and it's from the trajectory you posted.
AH.
Wish I could read German to see what all else this document says.
-
The manual contains instructions to adjust and maintain the guns and sights/periscope.
The guns are set to Visierschuss at 650m because that's the range they assumed an enemy aircraft to be trying to shoot the Bf 110 down.
BTW the document only talks about an installation in a Bf 110F Aufklärer (recon). Guns are set to fire straight rearwards with the noted trajectory upwards.
-
The manual contains instructions to adjust and maintain the guns and sights/periscope.
The guns are set to Visierschuss at 650m because that's the range they assumed an enemy aircraft to be trying to shoot the Bf 110 down.
BTW the document only talks about an installation in a Bf 110F Aufklärer (recon). Guns are set to fire straight rearwards with the noted trajectory upwards.
You have that 110 document as well?
-
You have that 110 document as well?
Yep, and multiple other docs.
-
Per Lyric's data it never actually had them, just the technical ability to have them.
Re-read what it says. "FEW had them". Doesn't say none or never installed. If you get picky with that then there's a lot in AH2 that takes some attributes.
I've played AH since AH1 came out. The Ar234 DID have a working periscope when it first came out. It's function was later taken out.
-
I've played AH since AH1 came out. The Ar234 DID have a working periscope when it first came out. It's function was later taken out.
The periscope never worked in AH. The Arado 234 didn't even have the guns enabled when it first came out, because HTC was not able to get the periscope view working. They later just enabled the guns and dropped the idea of making the periscope work.
Originally, we were going to have the periscope work, but I had a lot of trouble getting it to work. So we ditched it. However, it may turn up one of these days.
It's supposed to have the to fixed 20mm's, but we had a problem with the periscope not clipping correctly with the 3d model. I don't know if or when the cannons may be enabled.
No there isn't aside from an external view. The guns were originally planned but we ran into problems with the periscope view and shelved it for awhile. We still haven't had time to work on that, but people have been wanting it so I went ahead and enabled the guns.
-
Re-read what it says. "FEW had them". Doesn't say none or never installed.
You did not read all that I posted then.
Nearly all documents after a certain time frame do say doesn't never installed & so on.
I pointed this out that later authors did a complete 180 from their first publications with their very own same titled books in later editions.
-
You did not read all that I posted then.
Nearly all documents after a certain time frame do say doesn't never installed & so on.
I pointed this out that later authors did a complete 180 from their first publications with their very own same titled books in later editions.
Lyric you might address your assumption that a later work, written 70 years after the war ended, is more accurate than the information gathered at the war's end. If the later books contained documents proving that guns were never mounted on any 234B's then you'd have something but the books simply make unsupported statements. I mixed up Price and Brown earlier when I said Price investigated jets for the RAF., Price was RAF and did interview pilots after the war along with Jeff Ethell but it was Brown who had the job of investigating the German jet program for the RAF in 1945 and he actually landed on an active German airbase that flew Arado 234B's in Denmark by mistake, it was supposed to be captured already, and took their surrender. He also flew 7 different Arado 234B's to evaluate it's performance and to ferry them to England. He talked to everybody he could, pilots, ground crew, designers, and manufacturers, involved in the jet program. He's not a random source that can be easily dismissed by unsupported statements from writers who weren't there. Several sources state that some Arado 234B's had guns and a few state that none did. So far we don't have proof of either case.
-
If the very same book by the very same author has gone to the trouble to revise the information with a correction then they had information that made them change it. Any other reasoning would be illogical.
-
If the very same book by the very same author has gone to the trouble to revise the information with a correction then they had information that made them change it. Any other reasoning would be illogical.
Or a lack of information supporting his previous position?
-
If the very same book by the very same author has gone to the trouble to revise the information with a correction then they had information that made them change it. Any other reasoning would be illogical.
That's great. So what is this information? Why not document the changes from the previous edition? How do we know the authors changed it and not an editor or typesetter? My point is that you assume it's true but you actually know nothing about the reason it was changed. Brown has flown more Arado's and probably talked to more people directly involved with them than anyone else writing about them. What does logic suggest about that?
-
the 20mm's should indeed be removed, especially when you see how it is exploited with the F3 view...
Exploited in F3, NOT. The real jet had a rear view para-scope that worked. Ours does not. :old:
-
That's great. So what is this information? Why not document the changes from the previous edition? How do we know the authors changed it and not an editor or typesetter? My point is that you assume it's true but you actually know nothing about the reason it was changed. Brown has flown more Arado's and probably talked to more people directly involved with them than anyone else writing about them. What does logic suggest about that?
A typesetter that changes an authors book gets canned and the book gets reprinted. The point is that you are not accepting the fact that the a/c never had the guns in the first place. Without evidence to the contrary other than wishful thinking the guns in AH need to be removed.
-
A typesetter that changes an authors book gets canned and the book gets reprinted. The point is that you are not accepting the fact that the a/c never had the guns in the first place. Without evidence to the contrary other than wishful thinking the guns in AH need to be removed.
The actual point is that the reason the authors changed the text is not specified. You can imagine whatever you like, it doesn't alter the fact that the text changed without explanation.
-
Authors/companies changing their book(s) to reflect recent research are better than those who don't care.
Also it's quite common to get no information about what's changed in a newer revision of a book.
If authors won't incorporate new research into recent work we'd still live with MG 151 as cowl guns in the Bf 109K or other gimmick invented by authors of the 1940/1050s despited having access to wartime personnell or material.
-
Authors/companies changing their book(s) to reflect recent research are better than those who don't care.
Also it's quite common to get no information about what's changed in a newer revision of a book.
If authors won't incorporate new research into recent work we'd still live with MG 151 as cowl guns in the Bf 109K or other gimmick invented by authors of the 1940/1050s despited having access to wartime personnell or material.
Theoretical arguments are fun but it doesn't change the fact that none of you know why the information was changed in one book.
-
Wonder why this AR-234 didn't shoot back?
https://imgur.com/hi3IDWw?fbclid=IwAR39VUT5hdSjBsYegQxfG6Ad_AtY3ru7jKi_EDgYEYy-_vDheuZcVeSlAlw
Because they had no guns to do it! :neener:
-
Wonder why this AR-234 didn't shoot back?
...
Video says the pilot had already bailed out. That usually makes it difficult to operate any aircraft systems.
-
Holy necrobump, Batman!
-
Holy necrobump, Batman!
I was looking for my picture lol! :rofl
-
Video says the pilot had already bailed out. That usually makes it difficult to operate any aircraft systems.
Bailed out of a perfectly good airplane that was UNARMED!
-
Video says the pilot had already bailed out. That usually makes it difficult to operate any aircraft systems.
I lol'd.