« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: JU-52  (Read 7198 times)

Offline Eric19

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 591
Re: JU-52
« Reply #15 on: May 28, 2013, 06:03:24 AM »
we get JU52 then I want my C54 skymaster for resupping the strats.... :neener:
Logged
Proud member of the 91ST BG (H) The Ragged Irregulars

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6166
Re: JU-52
« Reply #16 on: May 28, 2013, 08:31:44 AM »
Am I reading it correct in that the Ju52 can carry more cargo weight than the C47?  Even if it is %25 slower, it is could carry more troops and gv supplies.... it may be worth it.  Perhaps give it a more beneficial ENY/OBJ score compared to the C47 (reduce the C47 down to 35 ENY)?

I'd like to see it.   :aok
Logged
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline 5PointOh

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2842
Re: JU-52
« Reply #17 on: May 28, 2013, 09:02:16 AM »
Well the C47 could carry 28 troops (which ours is limited by HTC to 10) and the JU-52 is maxed at 18.  If you are looking at empty weight vs loaded weight the C-47 wins again by almost 2,000lbs.
Logged
Coprhead
Wings of Terror
Mossie Student Driver

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: JU-52
« Reply #18 on: May 28, 2013, 10:39:34 AM »
Quote from: 5PointOh on May 27, 2013, 10:50:07 PM
+1 for slow target drones that will only see use in special events....

You're making a 'It doesn't add to the MA' argument? Seriously?  :lol

The MA reached uber-saturation with the B-29. Can a better buff be added? Nope.

And the P-51D, F4u-4 .... hell .... the 262? Hard pressed to add any fighters.

Uber tanks already.

Ah, it already had the C-47.

Yes, the gap-filling may well be for special events. Imagine that.  :)

p.s. That would be every Euro setting with a capture component in the design.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2013, 11:02:11 AM by Arlo »
Logged

Offline 5PointOh

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2842
Re: JU-52
« Reply #19 on: May 28, 2013, 11:29:23 AM »
Actually, the C54 would be the uber transport.  Why are your feathers in ruffle, I gave it a +1.  Although I do enjoy seeing you "gap filler" types spaz out.
Logged
Coprhead
Wings of Terror
Mossie Student Driver

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: JU-52
« Reply #20 on: May 28, 2013, 11:31:30 AM »
Quote from: 5PointOh on May 28, 2013, 11:29:23 AM
Actually, the C54 would be the uber transport.  Why are your feathers in ruffle, I gave it a +1.  Although I do enjoy seeing you "gap filler" types spaz out.

Oh, this isn't a 'spaz out' ... this is a clue by four.  :D
Logged

Offline -ammo-

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5124
Re: JU-52
« Reply #21 on: October 24, 2013, 11:11:41 AM »
*Punt*

I wish we had this AC for the November FSO: http://ahevents.org/fso-current-next-event.html
Logged
Commanding Officer, 56 Fighter Group
Retired USAF - 1988 - 2011

Offline alpini13

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: JU-52
« Reply #22 on: October 24, 2013, 11:26:49 AM »
no,too slow, other axis transport better suited for the role and historically accurate...SM-82
Logged

Offline -ammo-

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5124
Re: JU-52
« Reply #23 on: October 24, 2013, 11:29:31 AM »
Still - it is the correct transport for the November FSO.
Logged
Commanding Officer, 56 Fighter Group
Retired USAF - 1988 - 2011

Offline gyrene81

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11629
Re: JU-52
« Reply #24 on: October 24, 2013, 11:33:22 AM »
Quote from: alpini13 on October 24, 2013, 11:26:49 AM
no,too slow, other axis transport better suited for the role and historically accurate...SM-82
not going to happen before the ju-52 and you know it...

better suited and historically accurate huh? i'd like to see your evidence the sm.82 was used in russia...
Logged
jarhed  
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: JU-52
« Reply #25 on: October 24, 2013, 11:50:14 AM »
Quote from: -ammo- on October 24, 2013, 11:29:31 AM
Still - it is the correct transport for the November FSO.

alpini doesn't care about that. He's on a mission.  ;)
Logged

Offline -ammo-

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5124
Re: JU-52
« Reply #26 on: October 24, 2013, 11:52:11 AM »
Quote from: Arlo on October 24, 2013, 11:50:14 AM
alpini doesn't care about that. He's on a mission.  ;)

AHA!  So his mission is not parallel to mine :D
Logged
Commanding Officer, 56 Fighter Group
Retired USAF - 1988 - 2011

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: JU-52
« Reply #27 on: October 24, 2013, 12:00:10 PM »
Quote from: -ammo- on October 24, 2013, 11:52:11 AM
AHA!  So his mission is not parallel to mine :D

Nor mine. We should shoot him down while we have him out-numbered.  :D
Logged

Offline -ammo-

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5124
Re: JU-52
« Reply #28 on: October 24, 2013, 01:18:58 PM »
Quote from: Arlo on October 24, 2013, 12:00:10 PM
Nor mine. We should shoot him down while we have him out-numbered.  :D

Agreed :aok

HiTech had this AC modeled in WBs.  Shat, when I first started WBs in '99 my definition of "goons" was a JU-52
Logged
Commanding Officer, 56 Fighter Group
Retired USAF - 1988 - 2011

Offline save

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2824
Re: JU-52
« Reply #29 on: October 26, 2013, 06:03:26 PM »
i think ju52 came after Hitech and crowd already left ...
I know they added some planes like the b24 and j2m2 and the j2m3 , i do not remember if the ki-44 was post-hitech time.
Logged
My ammo last for 6 Lancasters, or one Yak3.
"And the Yak 3 ,aka the "flying Yamato"..."
-Caldera
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
« previous next »