Jump to content
=BAIT=CG_Justin

Me 410 and Mosquito

Recommended Posts

The Mossie would be well-suited as a UK equivalent to the A-20 and Pe-2 and saw a lot of service during the BoBp time-frame (though oft based outside the map area). Would be a good opponent for the 262s

 

Given the Ju-88 and Me110 versions, I would love to see an Ar-234 more than an Me-410.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

The Mossie would be well-suited as a UK equivalent to the A-20 and Pe-2 and saw a lot of service during the BoBp time-frame (though oft based outside the map area). Would be a good opponent for the 262s

 

Given the Ju-88 and Me110 versions, I would love to see an Ar-234 more than an Me-410.

Yep, mossie as recon plane as a target for schwalbe. (But ai awarenes must be toned down to allow schwalbe pilots to surprise the plane)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Voidhunger said:

Yep, mossie as recon plane as a target for schwalbe. (But ai awarenes must be toned down to allow schwalbe pilots to surprise the plane)

 

Luftwhinning! 😛

 

I would love to use it for interdiction on maps, though that Jerry flak is damned dangerous.

Edited by EAF19_Marsh
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

The Mossie would be well-suited as a UK equivalent to the A-20 and Pe-2 and saw a lot of service during the BoBp time-frame (though oft based outside the map area). Would be a good opponent for the 262s

 

Given the Ju-88 and Me110 versions, I would love to see an Ar-234 more than an Me-410.

the thing is, with the fighterbomber version of the 262 confirmed, the Ar 234 is almost un-needed, it can't do anything the 262 can't too. 

The 410 is more versatile and offers more gameplay!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Asgar said:

we all know what the game needs, a Me 410B in with the U-4 modification available

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Bildergebnis für me 410 u-4

 

 

With that sir, I totally agree

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Asgar said:

the thing is, with the fighterbomber version of the 262 confirmed, the Ar 234 is almost un-needed, it can't do anything the 262 can't too. 

The 410 is more versatile and offers more gameplay! 

 

I get you, but after the 110 I would feel the 410 to be something of a little nice but not that different given the use over the Rhine area (but I could be wrong). Not sure many were really around at the time outside of the RLV?

 

You are quire right that the Arado was essentially performing the same duties as the 262 in this sector and so has the same inclusion issues, but I just quite like the design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

You are quire right that the Arado was essentially performing the same duties as the 262 in this sector and so has the same inclusion issues, but I just quite like the design.

262 were used as fighter escort for the Arados. First big operations like that having the Ludendorff bridge over the Rhine as main target. First larger jet (only) operations in history.

 

The 410 on the other hand would just have been a happy meal in that role for the Tempests and Mustangs covering the area. As a bomber interceptor in 1944 over Germany on the however, an interesting proposition indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

I get you, but after the 110 I would feel the 410 to be something of a little nice but not that different given the use over the Rhine area (but I could be wrong). Not sure many were really around at the time outside of the RLV?

 

You are quire right that the Arado was essentially performing the same duties as the 262 in this sector and so has the same inclusion issues, but I just quite like the design.

oh certainly, it's a nice aircraft and good looking too and in an ideal world i would just say "add both" but sadly development resources are limited 😒

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Me 410 was largely phased out at that point and only very few remained, rather inactive, with a small number of frontline units, such as various reconnaissance units and 11./ZG 26 (Norway). This aircraft played absolutely no role in the area and timeframe BoBP is depicting.

 

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

262 were used as fighter escort for the Arados. First big operations like that having the Ludendorff bridge over the Rhine as main target. First larger jet (only) operations in history.

The Me 262 of KG 51 carried bombs themselves and did not act as fighter escorts. Moreover, the aerial attacks on the bridge(head) certainly weren't a jet-only operation.

Edited by =27=Davesteu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nijmegen. The bulk of the daylight attacks were made by Fw 190s and Bf 109s of regular fighter units. Me 262s were active in the area but I don't recall if they went for the bridge specifically.

"Daily report 27 September 1944:

19 Ju 87 of NSG 2 in attacks on bridges and roads leading into Nijmegen from the south. Two bombed secondary targets, a further three attacked Eindhoven. Bombs were observed to fall near troop movements.

42 a/c of III./KG 51 in two formations set out to attack bridges leading into Eindhoven from the south: 5 broke off for technical reasons and 1 missing.

4 Mistel and 8 Ju 88 of Einsatzgruppe 101 took off to attack bridges in Nijmegen. 1 Mistel and 2 Ju 88 broke off for technical reasons. 1 aircraft (Ju 88S) missing."

(National Archives AIR20/7704) No. VII/89 "War Diary of Luftflotte 3 (Western Front) September 1944"

On 28 September, the Fw 190 F-8s of Sonderverband Einhorn were also used and did bomb from a dive. This from Flt. Lt. Lapp of 411 Squadron RCAF:

While leading 411 Squadron on a low patrol over Nijmegen, several F.W. 190's were spotted coming from South East at approximately 12,000' we climbed and turned toward them. The 190's dived through us at high speed in an attempt to dive bomb the bridge. I took after the leading aircraft which dropped its bomb near the target, but was unable to get within 700 yds ...

According to the dairy of No. 100 AA Brigade, the Germans hit the rail bridge with a 500 kg bomb, putting it temporarily out of action, and slightly damaged part of the other bridge's roadway.

 

At Remagen, aside from the units already mentioned, NSG 2 and KG 51 were involved, as was 11./KG 200. Anything the Germans could get within range, really.

German lack of success against bridges in 1944–45 is at least in part attributable to the inadequacy of the means at their disposal. They couldn't send over formations of medium bombers in daylight to carpet the target like the USAAF could. Their medium bomber units were largely stood down in September 1944 and only reactivated for the one attack on Eindhoven during MARKET-GARDEN. At Remagen, the weather was terrible most of the time and the jets were often bombing under EGON guidance.

 

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/archive/index.php?t-17798.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2019 at 2:17 AM, AeroAce said:

 

I detect sarcasm but isn't the 177 four engines? 

 

EDIT I'm wrong. I was thinking of another plane. 

Right and wrong! I believe it had two propellers that were turned by two engines mated together each!

 

Mosquito, forward firing guns only. Arado 234, rearward firing guns only. Both fast. Both bomb carriers. Perfect. 

Edited by SShrike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the Arado had rearward firing defensive armament was there an apparatus to look to the rear to see what you were shooting? (IE: Mirror, because this game does mirrors very well)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Field-Ops said:

Since the Arado had rearward firing defensive armament was there an apparatus to look to the rear to see what you were shooting? (IE: Mirror, because this game does mirrors very well)

 

Periscope. I imagine it was meant more to dissuade attackers than provide accurate defensive fire.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

Periscope. I imagine it was meant more to dissuade attackers than provide accurate defensive fire.

At the speed the Arado is going, any attacker will quickly end up at dead 6. The periscope should not really be a limitation then. The Pe-2 belly gunner had a periscope as well.

 

But I haven‘t read of a single instance where defensive wepons of the Arado were used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

The Pe-2 belly gunner had a periscope as well

Yeah, but they never hit anything....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Diggun said:

Yeah, but they never hit anything....

Really? They still put in that gun though over all this time onstead of another 250 kg of bombs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I was being sarcastic. PE2 gunners are.... gifted....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

At the speed the Arado is going, any attacker will quickly end up at dead 6. The periscope should not really be a limitation then

 

You are underestimating the difficulty of hitting a moving target - the guns are fixed and therefore the fighter would have to be at exactly the correct time and place while the pilot (who is primarily concerned with flying) would be hard-pressed to make shots connect. Fixed rearward finding guns have never been widely adopted for this very reason.

 

'Dead 6' means somewhere in the rear cone, which equates to a lot of space where the guns will not hit. In any case, most -234s appear to have been hit by fighters in diving attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Field-Ops said:

Since the Arado had rearward firing defensive armament was there an apparatus to look to the rear to see what you were shooting? (IE: Mirror, because this game does mirrors very well)

 

The Ar234B didn't have rearward firing fixed guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Arado as modeled in IL2/46 had the rear gun with periscope.  It was useless.  The only time I ever hit anything with it was after pulling up from a bomb run I shot a static truck with it, purely by chance as I just pulled the trigger without aiming.

Edited by BlitzPig_EL
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I ever shot an aircraft down with it.  But a few times I was able to get enough hits during a tail chase to force the enemy aircraft to break off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

 

The Ar234B didn't have rearward firing fixed guns.

 

Installed in some prototypes. There was a pair of MG151/20 cannons in the rear and aimed by a periscope system.

 

In IL-2 1946 I managed to shoot down a few fighters with it in high speed chases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

Installed in some prototypes. There was a pair of MG151/20 cannons in the rear and aimed by a periscope system.

 

In IL-2 1946 I managed to shoot down a few fighters with it in high speed chases.

 

Proposed  for installation in the C model.

Edited by MiloMorai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like you and Shamrock are correct, just an A model thing.

 

Makes sense, the weight saving would be more useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we might be missing the point with the fixed rear facing guns...

Did USAF and RAF Pilots knew it was fixed at the time?

I remember reading that in later versions of the il2  the defensive gun was rigged so if the gunner was not holding it (he was dead), it still pointed back and not upwards... And I'm prety sure dead gunners dont shoot down planes either.

 

If the gun is SHOOTING too, it would be very convincing, at least to not aproach from 6, wich might give the Ar234 a chance to run away

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

the guns are fixed and therefore the fighter would have to be at exactly the correct time 

Seriously?? They better gave the guy who came up with that rifle and send him on the eastern front.

 

3 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

The Ar234B didn't have rearward firing fixed guns.

No wonder then.

 

Edit: I see that now, I thought of it as done on the Me-210.

Edited by ZachariasX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, =FEW=fernando11 said:

I think we might be missing the point with the fixed rear facing guns...

Did USAF and RAF Pilots knew it was fixed at the time?

I remember reading that in later versions of the il2  the defensive gun was rigged so if the gunner was not holding it (he was dead), it still pointed back and not upwards... And I'm prety sure dead gunners dont shoot down planes either.

 

If the gun is SHOOTING too, it would be very convincing, at least to not aproach from 6, wich might give the Ar234 a chance to run away

 

It's not going to fool anyone for very long, they were caught mostly in dives rather than flat approaches and the marginal utility of the gun comes with the opportunity cost of weight increase.

 

So overall probably better without.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Looks like you and Shamrock are correct, just an A model thing.

 

Makes sense, the weight saving would be more useful.

 

The only guns on the B model were proposed in a pod attached to the belly and in a fairing on top of the fuselage at the wing position. The top guns could be forward or rear firing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a mosquito could be likely due to the fact that it has no gunners and therefore easier to model. God I hope we get it someday !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about some assault gliders for us non-powered pilots?

 

Luftwaffe:

DFS 230

Gotha Go 242

Messerschmitt Me 321 Gigant

 

Soviet:

Antonov A-7

Antonov A-40 "Flying Tank"

 

Brits:

Airspeed AS.51 Horsa

General Aircraft Hamilcar

 

USA:

Waco CG-4A

 

Yeah, somewhat tongue in cheek, but if the argument of whether an aircraft is worthy of being digitally produced for the game is based on Historical significance, I would argue that these (especially the Waco and the Horsa) fit the bill. I think a more plausible reason to produce is general popularity and whether the Devs can make a profit on them (and I certainly don't begrudge that... they can't continue to give us our candy if they're not fiscally solvent).

 

As to the relative amount of players r.e. SP to MP, I would be curious to see the actual numbers.  

 

Edited by II./JG1_Vonrd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, II./JG1_Vonrd said:

As to the relative amount of players r.e. SP to MP, I would be curious to see the actual numbers.  

 

Jason answered that recently -  95% of players are SP. 

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, II./JG1_Vonrd said:

How about some assault gliders for us non-powered pilots?

For AI maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were gliders in the original IL2, and I don't think I ever saw them used, ever, in all the years I played it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DD Sid made a coop "Pegasus" using the German glider and its quite tricky to land in the dark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×