Remove the fantasy - Ar-234

[lyric1]

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.  

 

[Denniss]

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.

[Karnak]

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.

[Zoney]

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.

[FLS]

Some 234's did have the cannons mounted and that's why we have them in Aces High. 

[Chalenge]

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.

[FLS]

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.

[Butcher]

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.

[FLS]

Most of them didn't Butcher. Now prove that none of them did. You might also ask yourself why the AH version has them.

[Butcher]

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.

[Lusche]

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

[FLS]

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. 

[Babalonian]

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"

[Chalenge]

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.

[FLS]

I'm not going to argue with uninformed idiots.