Author Topic: AR 234 Dive Bomb Sight, JU 88 Dive Bomb Sight, The Val has one why not these? (Read 2275 times)

brady · « **Reply #15 on:** July 18, 2002, 04:30:13 PM »

Wow great stuff, TY for psoting and helping to make a better case for the addation of this sight to the JU 88 and AR 234.

brady · « **Reply #16 on:** February 05, 2003, 04:06:42 PM »

Batz · « **Reply #17 on:** February 05, 2003, 04:13:35 PM »

even the level bombsite on the arado is wrong and hurts its usage.

The pilot would swing the control column out of the way. Locate the target with the bomb site then "mark it". The plane would correct course and then release the bombs automatically.

Thew glide bomb site in the arado wasnt for "divebombing" it was for shallow angle "glide bombing".

brady · « **Reply #18 on:** May 31, 2004, 11:42:38 PM »

MiloMorai · « **Reply #19 on:** June 01, 2004, 06:33:29 AM »

Quote

The Ar 234's Periscope had a dual function. The Periscope was used to aim the rear guns, and also for shalow angle dive bombing, providing some sort of aiming point no mater how rudementry would be a big help in using this plane in this capacity.

It is hard to aim guns that are aligned with the fuselage CL.

The first Ar234 that was suppose to have rear firing guns was the C-3. The C-3 was the 4 engined model.

Batz · « **Reply #20 on:** June 01, 2004, 06:54:45 AM »

Quote

In principle, the Ar-234B had a pair of fixed rearward-firing 20 millimeter MG-151/20 cannon for protecting its tail, with the pilot sighting the guns through the periscope. Not only did the pilot have to be his own bombardier, he was his own tail gunner as well. However, in practice the guns were not always fitted and were never an important feature of the aircraft. Armor plate was attached to the rear wall of the cockpit to give the pilot a little protection.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #21 on:** June 01, 2004, 07:14:18 AM »

No reference source Batz.

from Arado 235 Blitz by Smith/Creek ISBN 0914144-51-0
pg 60

"It was intended to fit both versions (B-1, B-2) with a defensive armament of two rearward firing 20mm cannon, but these were never installed."

Batz · « **Reply #22 on:** June 01, 2004, 07:24:44 AM »

There are several sources listed at the bottom of that page....

MiloMorai · « **Reply #23 on:** June 01, 2004, 07:50:04 AM »

'that page'???

Lets be a wee bit more specific about 'that page'.

Sounds like a quote from a Monogram Close-up which are filled with errors.

Strange that there is no record of any test firings or 234 pilot's combat reports saying they fired the guns in the B-2 or enemy pilots reporting being fired at when attacking the 234 from the rear.

My first post was badly worded, so let me re-phrase: the B-2 did not have any rearward firing cannon fitted

Batz · « **Reply #24 on:** June 01, 2004, 08:32:15 AM »

The page that is linked at the top of this thread.

Usually when some one starts a thread with a link its a good indication that they are using info from that page.

Whether its right or wrong there it is with sources listed, take it or leave it.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #25 on:** June 01, 2004, 09:47:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Batz
The page that is linked at the top of this thread.

Now why did you not say that in the 1st place.

Quote

Usually when some one starts a thread with a link its a good indication that they are using info from that page.

Brady started the thread and you posted no links,:rolleyes:, just posted a quote out of 'Never-never Land'.

Batz · « **Reply #26 on:** June 01, 2004, 09:56:55 AM »

I assumed you had read the thread and atleast looked at the link.. Thats what most folks do. They read then reply.

Since you were responding to Brady's first post (you quoted him) it stands to reason that you would atleast skim the link he provided.

The quote I posted was from the site brady was basing his info on. It didnt come out of thin air....