Wmaker's posts quite conventiently bypass the one major fact of the matter....
He claimed you can't carry bombs on the same rack torpedoes used. I got my rack names mixed up at first (I admit that) but I was quite right that the SAME RACK that carried torpedoes was widely used to carry bombs.
He then posts 3 screenfuls of info that simply proved he was wrong, only he doesn't admit that.
The only external hardpoints that I can see in the screenshots are for the torps.
Hard points for the torps aren't the same hard points that are used for the external bombs.
Actually, they are.[...]
My error was mixing up the name ETC2000 with PVC1006. His error was trying to pick a fight (and yes that's what his leading questions were trying to do) when he didn't know what he was talking about. I can even dig up a quote about Heinkels in North Africa that had the PVC (I know the proper name now) bomb rack but couldn't use their torpedoes because they didn't have the arm stops for them, so instead used bombs. The exact same rack. Torps OR bombs, switched out depending on what mission was needed.
Much like the Ju-88? I'm thinking its going to be relegated to the suicide torpedo role against CVs off shore in the MA for the most part.
The side guns on the He-111 could actually fold back somewhat flush. The problem is you only had a very tiny window to see through, so when they were aimed rearward you could barely see out the window. Theoretically with the dorsal gun, the side guns that can point backwards pretty far, and the ventral gondola, the He-111 should have better coverage of fire towards the aft. I know our Ju88 has this big dead zone to either side and along the middle plane. You have to jump up and down to cover the same target and it can be distracting. Theoretically the He-111 has better coverage but might be harder to shoot back with.