He177 ?

[Karnak]

Im sure that every luftwaffe player in the game would like to have the He-177 in the game.

Lancaster: 7,377 built, 7crew, 3 gunner stations. <--- weak, no wonder night bombers, and only able to hit a city!

You are aware that by 1944 Lancasters were more accurate at night than B-17s were by day, yes?

No, your bias blinds you.

B-17s:     12,731 built. 10crew, 6 gunner stations. Daylight bomber! <-- war winner!

B-24s:     18,482 built. 11crew, 6 gunner stations. Daylight bomber!  <-- war winner

He-177A-5: 826 built(?) 6crew?, 7 gunner stations? All A-5's were bug free, and the A-3/R2s had most of their bugs worked out - as much as any plane in the war.  (1169 total for he-177s).

Lets see, without these 30,000 USA bombers bombing Germany, maybe the He-177 would have seen higher production numbers and more use? And this says nothing about all the USA medium bombers, USA fighters, USA attack fighters, USA supply planes, ships, etc etc etc!

Hmmm, more bias.  No mention of Halifax production either.  (Or Wellington and Mosquito production, both of which also were used as strategic bombers).

It is fine to tout the He177A-5, but don't lie about other things to puff it up.

[Franz Von Werra]

6,178 halifax made? same weak defensive guns... two stations, neither can see down... meat and potatoes if not flying at night time.
 
Wellingtons (11,461 built) NOT FOUR ENGINE! Same weak defenses as all british bombers.

Mosquito (7,781 built) NOT FOUR ENGINE! only forward firing guns? lol

Ju-88 (15,183 built) of normal version.

He-111 (6,508 built)

HE-177 SAW COMBAT, MASS PRODUCED, BUG FREE, FILLS A MAJOR GAP IN LUFTWAFFE...
meets all requirements to be put in game except that its better than lancasters so so allies going to cry!

[lyric1]

All A-5's were bug free,

That is a long reach right there.

[jag88]

That is a long reach right there.

Indeed.

[Karnak]

6,178 halifax made? same weak defensive guns... two stations, neither can see down... meat and potatoes if not flying at night time.

Yes, at night.  Here is your "Only able to hit a city." accuracy:
Results of RAF Bomber Command's night raid on the V weapon research facility:

 

Wellingtons (11,461 built) NOT FOUR ENGINE! Same weak defenses as all british bombers.

Yes, and unlike the Do17, Do217, He111, Ju88 and Ju188, it had the range to be a strategic bomber.

Mosquito (7,781 built) NOT FOUData Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????=~=~       276697661MltCpy2.10 FILL FILLed Sector; ST500DM002-9YN14 (CC4H) S1D5GMZYData Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????/>

You're delusional if you think it was "bug free". I doubt there was any bug free aircraft in WWII.  Probably never any aircraft at any time anywhere to be honest.

As to the quip about the Lancaster.  I couldn't care less that the Lancaster is an Allied plane.  As I have explained, what I am looking at, is the effect on player choice.  In my opinion the He177A-5, modeled bug free as it would be in AH, has the potential to change the heavy bomber choice for players other than fans of a particular bomber from a choice between three to a choice between two or no choice at all.  Meaningful choices make games fun.  Less choice means less engaging the player.

Lets mention another Axis "heavy bomber", the H8K2 'Emily'.  How would it fit in? Well, it would likely be tougher than even the B-17G and is defended by five Type 99 Model 1 20mm cannons, just like the tail gun on the G4M1, as well as a few rifle caliber machine guns.  Its range would be insane, capable of 24 hours of flight (12 in AH).  Climb rate starts at about 1800ft/min, which is very fast for a four engined aircraft.  Top speed is about 290mph.  However, its payload is only eight 250kg bombs or two torpedoes and it is a flying boat.  Also, just over 100 of them were built, though they saw very heavy use from their introduction in 1942 until the end of the war.

Having established its specs, would it be a fourth choice or would it eliminate other contenders?  I think it would be a fourth choice as its bomb load is lighter, but it climbs faster and has strong defenses.  The flying boat aspect would be the biggest wild card as it would probably launch from ports only.

[Franz Von Werra]

Nice pics, Did only one bomber do that from 30,000ft pitch black sky with clouds too? HAHA
How many bombers raid was this? What alt were they dropped from? What speed? Any fighter resistance this day? What year?
Source? Post the whole link please! So we can read the whole article! Cherry picking a cherry picked article? Double cherry picking!  HAHA

FROM PAGE#6 of this repeating thread! We're already passed the 'bug part'... thread still getting spammed 'bugged' though.

from wikipedia.com  
First paragraph
Luftwaffe aircrew nicknamed it the Luftwaffenfeuerzeug (Luftwaffe's lighter) or the "Flaming Coffin" due to the serious engine problems on initial versions of the aircraft. When these problems were later rectified, the type was successful, but it could not be deployed in large numbers due to Germany's deteriorating situation in the war."
From further down at 'engines' part:
Starting with the He 177 A-3/R2, a modified engine nacelle with a new "power system", the Daimler-Benz DB 610, each of which consisted of a pair of Daimler-Benz DB 605s set up to work as one as the DB 606 had been, was used to eliminate the tendency for engine fires. With the introduction of the DB 610 came several improvements including the relocation of the engine oil tank, the lengthening of the engine mountings by 20 cm (8 in), the complete redesign of the exhaust system which also facilitated the installation of exhaust dampers for night missions, and the setting of a power limitation on the engines which resulted in greater reliability. These modifications, supposedly numbering 56 of both major and minor varieties, were successful as far as eliminating engine fires were concerned, but other minor problems with the transfer gearbox between the two component engines of each "power system" and their shared propeller remained."
Logic can conclude that by the A-5, it had even fewer, if any bugs... "bug free" is an acceptable phrase describing the He-177A-5.

First 130 production He-177A-1's had problems OOOHHHKAAAY! <-- pressed into service due to USA and USSR fully in the war!
Second 170 production He-177A-3's had most problems fixed!
Main Production series 826 built: He-177A-5, 'acceptable' to say "bug free."

[Karnak]

I have dozens of such photos, mostly from 1944.  Daylight raids by Lancasters became more common in 1945 for obvious reasons.

As I stated, by 1944 the RAF bombers were more accurate than the USAAF bombers, despite the fact that the RAF operated primarily at night.  None of the heavies (B-17s, B-24s, Halifaxes or Lancasters) could match the Mosquito bombers, but the accuracy was far, far better than just hitting a city.  The reasons being improvements in target identification through things like target marking and terrain mapping radar called H2S.  RAF bombers also had the advantage that each aircraft was responsible for its own aiming rather than dropping when the leader dropped his load.

You're obviously a Luftwaffe fan.  Do yourself a favor though and read up on the operations of their USAAF and RAF opponents to gain a better perspective on the air war.  The cat and mouse game between RAF Bomber Command and the Luftwaffe is particularly interesting in how fast it pushed technology.  The difference in the RAF's effectiveness in 1941 compared to 1944 is staggering.  You should find much of it appealing as the Luftwaffe had some great triumphs over the RAF, so much so that for a time Bomber Command's loss rate at night was higher than the USAAF's during the day.

[Tank-Ace]

Im sure that every luftwaffe player in the game would like to have the He-177 in the game.

Most Luftwaffe players (not those who sometimes fly a German aircraft, or even know the 109 or 190 well,  but true Luftdweebs) actively wish it doesn't get added any time soon.

HTC needs the links for more complete information! The link might be able to just copy/paste into Google's translator for EASIER TRANSLATION than just these pictures!!!

I refuse to translate anything or post links,  and I urge any others who speak German to do the same

[Blunder]

Interesting to see what kind of histlity my small request resulted in..
And although I followed this thread, I just dont get it why someone claims the He177 would make Lancaster and B17 obsolete. There are enough options in Ah to model the plane not as OP as Karnak and Tank-Ace would see it.
I think it would suit very well between the lancaster in payload and B17 in defense. Oh and even giving it a small Perk would deny its mass use in MA. HTC could still lower its Damage modell to somehow simulate the reliability.
I would rather say adding the He177 would improve the diversity in AH, especially as I did mostly flew LW-Planes except for bomber runs as there isnt any viable LW-bomber in AH IMO.

[jag88]

Interesting to see what kind of histlity my small request resulted in..
And although I followed this thread, I just dont get it why someone claims the He177 would make Lancaster and B17 obsolete. There are enough options in Ah to model the plane not as OP as Karnak and Tank-Ace would see it.
I think it would suit very well between the lancaster in payload and B17 in defense. Oh and even giving it a small Perk would deny its mass use in MA. HTC could still lower its Damage modell to somehow simulate the reliability.
I would rather say adding the He177 would improve the diversity in AH, especially as I did mostly flew LW-Planes except for bomber runs as there isnt any viable LW-bomber in AH IMO.

It is all due to a basic misunderstanding of the aircraft, most people simply have no idea of its capabilities and believe some inaccurate wikipedia numbers and freak out thinking it will be OP and hate it thinking it might kill their favorite aircraft, or get exited and want it... because they think it would be OP.  They are all equally wrong.

It was an advanced concept, very strong airframe due to a ill-conceived concept, temperamental engines, maintenance intensive that suffered from teething problems worsened by the LW training and logistical debacle.  It had the potential to become a truly great bomber, its 4x DB603A engined version did 450kph close to the deck and would have been a decent counterpart, not for the Lanc, but for the B-29.  However, since the LW insisted on the coupled engines instead of going 4 singles when it should have (just as the RAF did with the Manchester), it deprived itself of what could have been a far more significant and effective bomber. 

Would it have changed history?  Not a chance.

Would it fill a blatant hole in the LW lineup in the game?  Most certainly.  It is puzzling the went for a scenario aircraft rather than a viable MA aircraft given that the existing one is already more of a scenario plane than a MA one.

Modelling wise, the engines could not be overstressed, meaning that you had to avoid long periods at max power or sudden increases in power.  That should be easy to model.

[Karnak]

jag88,

I assure you, it has little chance of killing my favorite aircraft.

It stands a very good chance, on the performance numbers you have given, of changing the effective choice of heavy bombers from between three aircraft to between two or one aircraft.

I would not expect the engine issues to be modeled any differently than the B-29's engine issues.  A bit more vulnerable to damage, but otherwise able to run at 100% MIL without limit.

[jag88]

jag88,

I assure you, it has little chance of killing my favorite aircraft.

It stands a very good chance, on the performance numbers you have given, of changing the effective choice of heavy bombers from between three aircraft to between two or one aircraft.

I would not expect the engine issues to be modeled any differently than the B-29's engine issues.  A bit more vulnerable to damage, but otherwise able to run at 100% MIL without limit.

If it does become too dominant after the initial novelty period it should be perked.  If it overshadows the Lanc it should rate an "Oh well".

I disagree on the engine issue, they had to be managed and that shouldnt be too hard to replicate, just make it accelerate at a slightly slower rate than it would be otherwise possible to illustrate normal operational procedures.  And maybe shorten boost duration.

Although I believe than in general bombers should be limited to top cruise when taken in formation, but I can see how that would be a bitter pill to take for most.

[Karnak]

If it just killed the Lancaster that would be fine, probably.  If its defenses were significantly effective then we might have an issue of offense being too potent given a bomber with Lancaster sized loads but well defended.

Given the B-24J's vulnerability I strongly suspect it would also heavily impact the B-24J's use, perhaps killing it as thoroughly as the Lancaster.  The last issue is if the B-17G's durability and defensive firepower is enough better to ever justify taking it at the cost of ~7,000lbs per plane of bombs.  Compared to the weak Lancaster defensive guns the answer is yes, but compared to the much better defenses of the He177 it is a lot less clear.

[jag88]

Maybe, but the He-177 would be even more vulnerable than the B-24, the fuselage is strong and should be resilient, but hit one of the vulnerable an large engine nacelles and 50% of the power is gone and it cant fly on that when over 22t, barely 5t over its empty weight.

But it will be popular as any viable LW bomber would be since right now there is no such plane in the MA forcing some people to use non-LW materiel.  If its gonna kill something, is the Ju-88, save for torpedo attacks.

Being this a US game I dont see US bombers taking THAT much of a hit given the mythos built around them.

[hammer]

Most Luftwaffe players (not those who sometimes fly a German aircraft, or even know the 109 or 190 well,  but true Luftdweebs) actively wish it doesn't get added any time soon.

I must have missed that poll. I would like to see it added. I understand Karnak's concerns, but that is part of what the perk system is for. If the plane begins to be to dominant, perk it. Or, if it appears its performance is too far above others in its class, make it a perk from the beginning. There's no good reason not to include it in the plane set as it meets all of the other requirements.

Regards,

Hammer