He177 ?

[Franz Von Werra]

No matter how many times, or how many different words you use,  you saying "the He-177 was a failure" does not make it true.

Lancaster was a failue?
Only 7,300 built? Englands factories protected by USA fighters all over by 1942 when He-177 came out.
No bottom gun? Lancaster couldn't even defend itself... why does a Lancaster get F3 view? Thats a cheat right there, they couldnt see down.
Windows fogging up back there, no defrosters? Tail gunner couldnt even see if at alt.
Lanc's went to NIGHT TIME BOMBING loaded with PAPER LEAFLETS for a reason... THEY SUCKED.

[Franz Von Werra]

Spit16 never saw combat!

Off topic circus!

[Karnak]

Spit16 never saw combat!

Off topic circus!

So either delusional or a historical revisionist.

(The Spitfire Mk XVI saw lots of combat without even talking about it being the same as the Spitfire LF.Mk IXe)

[GScholz]

Karnak won't listen to reason. He's too emotionally invested in his point of view. Thankfully he does not get to decide what HTC models or not, so there's not need to continue this.

[jag88]

You mean the historical evidence of fleets of B-17s, B-24s, Lancasters, Halifaxes, and even B-29s as compared to the trickle of unreliable He177s?  You mean that evidence that one of us is ignoring?

You guys would have the Allied heavies, historically successful, be largely supplanted by a historical footnote of a failed weapons program.  It is absurd.


jag88,

Cherry picking data does not strengthen your case when your cherry picked example yields the unimpressive serviceability number of 80%.

You do at least know that around 1.150 He-177s were built, basically the same number than Ju-188s, right?  That most of them were A5s? The these are not just a limited run and that this is a game where you can jump on a Me-163 and the B-29's engines dont catch fire by themselves?

If you want historical fidelity you must lobby for limiting late LW aircraft to only a restricted number of new accounts, since they were used by badly trained pilots that fought outnumbered.  For that purpose, just erase LW bombers, they were after all all grounded and thir pilots handed a shiny fighter and a heart-felt "good luck".

Or you can accept that this is a game...

[Karnak]

Karnak won't listen to reason. He's too emotionally invested in his point of view. Thankfully he does not get to decide what HTC models or not, so there's not need to continue this.

More like the fact that I am not blinded by lust for a mythical German heavy bomber and willing to trample over any inconvenient information in order to sell my desire.

You do at least know that around 1.150 He-177s were built, basically the same number than Ju-188s, right?

Yes, about 700 of them the more or less usable A-5s.

That most of them were A5s? The these are not just a limited run and that this is a game where you can jump on a Me-163 and the B-29's engines dont catch fire by themselves?

Neither the B-29 nor Me163 had anything like the engine failure rates of even the He177A-5.

If you want historical fidelity you must lobby for limiting late LW aircraft to only a restricted number of new accounts, since they were used by badly trained pilots that fought outnumbered.  For that purpose, just erase LW bombers, they were after all all grounded and thir pilots handed a shiny fighter and a heart-felt "good luck".

Or you can accept that this is a game...

That isn't the same as what I am suggesting.

[lyric1]

Put the plane in game no problem.
Just program it that every so often when the air is a little rough it just falls apart.
Just so it is historically correct for starters.

[Acidrain]

hey Retards , design flaws are not modeled in AH for any aircraft or vehicle and many of them had issues, some crippling...get over it.

[Tank-Ace]

The 4xSC500 strapped to the Ju-88 do have an impact on its speed in game, the same would happen to the Ju-188.

Obviously they do. You lose about 20mph with external loads in the 88.

The question is if the 188's bomb racks and their placement would result in more drag than the 88's.

[GScholz]

I have often wondered why some people spend energy on arguing against adding something to the game. I don't fly bombers so I don't have any vested interest in the Greif. However I think it would make a cool addition to the plane set.

[Karnak]

Oops.  Gateway issues.

[Karnak]

hey Retards , design flaws are not modeled in AH for any aircraft or vehicle and many of them had issues, some crippling...get over it.

None as bad as the He177, though late war Japanese fighters had more serious issues due to quality control, not design failure, than the He177A-5 had.

Gameplay currently:

Do you want a heavy bomb load at the expenses of light defenses?  Lancaster
Do you want heavy defenses at the expense of a light bomb load? B-17G
Do you want a compromise?  B-24J

After adding the He177A-5:

Do you want a heavy bomb load at the expenses of light defenses?  He177A-5
Do you want heavy defenses at the expense of a light bomb load? He177A-5
Do you want a compromise?  Why take a weaker option.

Now, I'll grant that the B-17G and Lancaster Mk III are almost certainly going to be able to take more punishment than the He177A-5, but the essential issue is that with a free He177A-5 effective choice is removed from the game.  Games need decisions and there is no decision when you have a theoretical unperked heavy bomber lineup that looks like B-17F, B-17G, B-24D, B-24J, H8K2, Halifax Mk III, He177A-5, Lancaster Mk III, P.108, and Pe-8 there isn't really much choice if your criteria is just the most effective.  The answer, in the mechanically perfect AH, will always be the He177A-5.  Sure, the others will see some use for personal reasons, but the most effective ceases to be situational as it is now and becomes a single, universal answer.

Now, that being said, a theoretical unperked heavy bomber lineup that looks like B-17F, B-17G, B-24D, B-24J, H8K2, Halifax Mk III, Lancaster Mk III, P.108, and Pe-8 suddenly has those choices restored, though it has some redundancy in it, but it lacks a German heavy.  Nonetheless, should that be acceptable, what then do you think an appropriate perk price for the He177A-5?  It would not be as survivable as any of the current perk bombers, but it would have much better hitting power than either the Ar234B or Mosquito Mk XVI.  Would an initial perk price of about the same as the Mosquito make sense? Trade survivability for hitting power?

I have often wondered why some people spend energy on arguing against adding something to the game. I don't fly bombers so I don't have any vested interest in the Greif. However I think it would make a cool addition to the plane set.

Sometimes adding something actually takes something away.  In the case of the He177A-5 it takes away a meaningful choice, if added per the OPs wish.

[jag88]

More like the fact that I am not blinded by lust for a mythical German heavy bomber and willing to trample over any inconvenient information in order to sell my desire.
Yes, about 700 of them the more or less usable A-5s.
Neither the B-29 nor Me163 had anything like the engine failure rates of even the He177A-5.
That isn't the same as what I am suggesting.

What information?  You havent quoted anything, you are just pullling the same warmed over mantra about the He-177 without looking at more detailed information, just because you dont want the bomber in the game and want to shoot it down at all costs.

Really?  What were the engine failure rates of the A5 by late 1944?  Just curious... since you mention them...

[jag88]

Obviously they do. You lose about 20mph with external loads in the 88.

The question is if the 188's bomb racks and their placement would result in more drag than the 88's.

Then why in hell where you arguing the point?  External stores will affect performance, if they do they will reduce the speed to something closer to the Greif's which carries a heavier load and better defenses, in that case, why take the Ju-188?

[LCADolby]

I joined AH in 2008 making it a 5 year wait for the 111, I'll see the 177 in 2018