Jump to content
II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson

Current Ju-88 vs C6

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

Yeah, that's so true - especially if we ignore the fact that the 188 is much faster and has much better defensive armament 🤣

 

Last time I checked, all allied fighters were significantly faster than the 188. A P-51 at 60% internal gas has enough fuel to chase a 188 all across the map.

Quite the opposite to 1940, where a diving Ju 88 could leave a Hurricane behind, eating dust.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

My wet dream that could fit Normandy;

Ju88-A17 :)

whole new gameplay element!

 

Yep! And a Beaufighter please.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeeees, a Coastal Command Beaufighter - the typical enemie for the C-6.

Torpedoes , with all their speed and height limitations, would be nice for BoX IMHO

 

Do realy people belive that bombers (exception Mosquito and jets)  could survive at daylight without heavy fighter escort at daylight in the west at least from 1943 on?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Last time I checked, all allied fighters were significantly faster than the 188. A P-51 at 60% internal gas has enough fuel to chase a 188 all across the map.

Quite the opposite to 1940, where a diving Ju 88 could leave a Hurricane behind, eating dust.

 

The P-51 is indeed faster than the Ju188 - thank you for clarifying that.

 

I would like my chances more in a much faster, much more heavily armed 188 than the relic we are getting. I also like my chances of pulverizing my target with 6,600lb bomb load versus the dainty, fighter-like 500lb bomb load of the C6a.

 

Finally, a P-51 on the receiving end of a 20mm defensive cannon paired with a 13mm HMG isn't going to be chasing shyt around any map.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

Finally, a P-51 on the receiving end of a 20mm defensive cannon paired with a 13mm HMG isn't going to be chasing shyt around any map.

 

Correct.

It's probably gonna put a cal 50 through your pilot's head first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, from 1,000m out after going through the entire aircraft to get there.

 

Congrats, your dream scenario has come to fruition.

Edited by CUJO_1970

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, from a high-angle off approach, wich thanks to all the fighters' speed advantage is easy to set up.

 

The speed-difference between a slick C-6 and a bombed-up 188 isn't all that much anyway.

The C-6 fits a new role, which is interesting. If it's not to you, you're welcome not to fly it.

 

Edited by Bremspropeller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question is not if you get toasted if spotted by a fighter. The question is what you like to get toasted in. JU 88 or JU 188

Personally I prefer DO 217 K for some odd reason. But of the above two I choose 188

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

No, from a high-angle off approach, wich thanks to all the fighters' speed advantage is easy to set up.

 

...and set up again, and again if needed.

Although a single well placed burst should do the trick.

 

 

 

Both versions would be just as much fun to shred it seems.

Especially with the Skeeter.

Share this post


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

No, from a high-angle off approach, wich thanks to all the fighters' speed advantage is easy to set up.

 

The speed-difference between a slick C-6 and a bombed-up 188 isn't all that much anyway.

The C-6 fits a new role, which is interesting. If it's not to you, you're welcome not to fly it.

 

An experienced bomber pilot will maneuver and put it's aircraft in an position which benefits it's gunners which will make high-angle off approaches much more difficult and considering the ju188 has better defensive armament and higher speed it will add vital seconds that increases it's chances of survival and/or it's gunners making an hit.

 

Sure an experienced fighterpilot will most likely win the engagement but those same pilots will often have no issues facing spitfires and p51's.

 

And what new role will the C-6 have that the Bf110 doesn't have already?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ww2fighter20 said:

And what new role will the C-6 have that the Bf110 doesn't have already?

 

BF 110s aren´t available on the western front in 1944 or 1945 except for nightfighters. Neither in BoBP nor in BoN. Only unit which used them in the timeframe in a dayfighter role IIRC was ZG 26 and those where operating from Koenigsberg-Neumark east of Berlin involved in defense of the Reich duties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

BF 110s aren´t available on the western front in 1944 or 1945 except for nightfighters. Neither in BoBP nor in BoN. Only unit which used them in the timeframe in a dayfighter role IIRC was ZG 26 and those where operating from Koenigsberg-Neumark east of Berlin involved in defense of the Reich duties.

 

I too kinda remember the 110 not quite being available in the time frame we are concerned about. 

 

The Ju88C6 looks increasingly better in my eyes every time I think about it. It will be a slow and ungainly bird to fly in mid-44 or 45, but a cool 'niche' plane nonetheless and interesting because of just that. 

 

We have no heavy fighters in the game insofar, by that I mean the typical and quite common conversion of a medium bomber into fighter duty, so it will certainly be refreshing. 

 

EDIT: btw, Cliffs of Dover is doing the same thing, they are adding an earlier version of  the ju88 fighter ...

 

https://ibb.co/album/ifXzfa

 

... which admittedly fits that game much better, as there we find some really big birds to shoot at, that typically flew unescorted over great distances - just the scenario for a heavy fighter like that. Poor Sunderland!

Edited by danielprates
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

No, from a high-angle off approach, wich thanks to all the fighters' speed advantage is easy to set up.

 

The speed-difference between a slick C-6 and a bombed-up 188 isn't all that much anyway.

The C-6 fits a new role, which is interesting. If it's not to you, you're welcome not to fly it.

 

 

Arbitrary scenarios are pretty cool! In mine, the P-51 is taken out by a rifle caliber round, just as likely to happen online, or in real life.

 

I do agree the C6a fits a new role: that of being an inferior option. Nonetheless, thank you for the permission not to fly it - I do appreciate it and will take it into consideration sir.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

Arbitrary scenarios are pretty cool! In mine, the P-51 is taken out by a rifle caliber round, just as likely to happen online, or in real life.

 

So the Ju 88's defensive weaponry is sufficient after all?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay - a couple of points:

 

1) The Ju-188 is obviously more survivable than the Ju-88... but against fast fighters with heavy machine-guns or cannons the extra speed and firepower of late war bombers isn't going to make that much of a difference.

 

2) If we seek to only model the best airplanes for each role and each time period... then we would end up with one (or two) fighters, one bomber... and that is it. So you have a glorious simulation with six aircraft and nothing else.

 

I'd also like to add an observation:

- Pick a Bf-110... lower the flaps and only use the machine guns. Set your throttle at 70 percent (or whatever gives you 250 km/h). Pick a Ju-52 in the quick mission builder as your enemy.

- Your performance and firepower is now that of a Fw-58 night-fighter (albeit you weigh twice as much) intercepting a Lisunov-2 (albeit a very Ju-52 shaped one)...

 

It. is. fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did this turn into a Ju 88 C-6 (R-2) vs. Ju 188 (E-1) argument? I for one would replace the unhistorical Ar 234 B-2 and sell it as a stand-alone (BoBP) collector plane.

Move the Ju 88 C-6 (R-2) to the collector slot and add the Ju 188 E-1 to the main planeset.

 

Jason told me that they can't build the Me 410 and the Ju 188 with the resources and time available to them - drop the operational V-1.

The resources and time allocated for developing the V-1 and Ar 234 should be sufficient to build the Ju 188 E-1. Large parts of the Ju 88 A-4 model could be reused and the BMW 801 G-2 engine could be adapted from the Fw 190's BMW 801 D-2.

 

To those saying the Ju 188 isn't relevant because they operated at night: the same goes for the Me 410.

To those saying the Ju 188 is dead meat if attacked by 1944 fighters: the same goes for the Me 410.

There are no Allied bombers for the Me 410 night intruders to attack.

The pre-invasion phase, 'Unternehmen Steinbock' (Baby Blitz), is hardly complete without a Luftwaffe bomber (if one doesn't own the Ju 88 A-4 (Bf 109 G-6 argument)).

 

 

On 12/13/2019 at 12:41 AM, Avimimus said:

Oh? Admittedly my info is from Jippo's team (which created the Ju-88 in the original Il-2)... it comes from their description of the gondolaless variant which they 3d modelled (but which wasn't accepted by Oleg's team).

I'm also curious why you think the mission profiles in the east couldn't be recreated?

The only documented (photo) C-6 without gondola I'm aware of was operated by KG 76 in the Mediterranean.

Random career mission are out of question; scripted ones might work a bit better.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, =27=Davesteu said:

Why did this turn into a Ju 88 C-6 (R-2) vs. Ju 188 (E-1) argument? I for one would replace the unhistorical Ar 234 B-2 and sell it as a stand-alone (BoBP) collector plane.

Move the Ju 88 C-6 (R-2) to the collector slot and add the Ju 188 E-1 to the main planeset.

 

Jason told me that they can't build the Me 410 and the Ju 188 with the resources and time available to them - drop the operational V-1.

The resources and time allocated for developing the V-1 and Ar 234 should be sufficient to build the Ju 188 E-1. Large parts of the Ju 88 A-4 model could be reused and the BMW 801 G-2 engine could be adapted from the Fw 190's BMW 801 D-2.

 

Hm hmmm Ju188 E-2....you're welcome!

 

(I apologize for raping forum with torpedo bombers)

Edited by EAF_Ribbon
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2019 at 1:42 AM, sevenless said:

 

BF 110s aren´t available on the western front in 1944 or 1945 except for nightfighters. Neither in BoBP nor in BoN. Only unit which used them in the timeframe in a dayfighter role IIRC was ZG 26 and those where operating from Koenigsberg-Neumark east of Berlin involved in defense of the Reich duties.

 

The 110 isn't there, but the 410 is, and it is so much better in every respect than the 110, save for dogfighting. 

 

Which also brings up the question why have a totally inferior heavy / strike fighter option with the 88C-6 when you have the 410.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Which also brings up the question why have a totally inferior heavy / strike fighter option with the 88C-6 when you have the 410

 

Why have any other fighter than the Mustang, for that matter?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for me i'm hyped for the Ju88c and cant wait to fly it.

 

Also dont understand the drama with the Ju188. For sure we will get it as a standalone at some point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, danielprates said:

 

Why have any other fighter than the Mustang, for that matter?

 

Because then everyone would feel fat and sassy.

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2019 at 8:38 PM, sevenless said:

 

Yep! And a Beaufighter please.

Beaufighter and Ju-88A-17 save for Med and Italy in 4-5 years :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Well at least we get G-6 late by popular demand 😄

3jxw5i.jpg

I'd take them both:P

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Which also brings up the question why have a totally inferior heavy / strike fighter option with the 88C-6 when you have the 410.

 

Because it was there. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I love the fact that we are getting the Ju-88C6...

 

guess the dream of ever seeing a Dornier 217M-1 in a game would have to wait...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not long, as they can do 217s with late east front dlc after BoN, same with He-177 if they wont you cant have all axis airplanes in BoN 😄 if they didnt do Me-410 or Ju88C6, ppl would be asking what about 410s or 86C6s, why 188 and 217s... its never ending story

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 77.CountZero said:

 😄 if they didnt do Me-410 or Ju88C6, ppl would be asking what about 410s or 86C6s, why 188 and 217s... its never ending story

 

Yes. Me 410 and Ju 88 C6 are the most sensible twin engine planes for BoN. Of course more is always better but we and they don´t live in Wonderland and they have to prioritize things.

Edited by sevenless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another sensible twin would be an earlier Lightning.

Depending on the timeframe, this could be an H or earlier J.

 

I'd also like an L, but I'm not sure who got those, as Lightnings were generally phased out from mid '44 onwards.

The only FG to retain Lightnings through V-E day was the 474th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Another sensible twin would be an earlier Lightning.

Depending on the timeframe, this could be an H or earlier J.

 

I'd also like an L, but I'm not sure who got those, as Lightnings were generally phased out from mid '44 onwards.

The only FG to retain Lightnings through V-E day was the 474th.

 

In the long run a droopsnoot would be very nice IMHO as would be a Mossie XVI to place some cookies 😎 Me likes cookies 😁

 

droopsnoot.jpg

MossieXVI.jpg

Edited by sevenless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one am looking forward to flying the c6, im only afraid that it will lack speed to really catch allied bombers and im assuming most bombers will fly on the deck like most pe2 players do.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jann3man said:

I for one am looking forward to flying the c6, im only afraid that it will lack speed to really catch allied bombers and im assuming most bombers will fly on the deck like most pe2 players do.

 

 

 

That will depend on the multiplayer server you're flying on.

 

On TAW we fly Pe-2 flights at 3000-4000 meters and do dive bombing attacks only leaving the target area on the deck.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

On TAW we fly Pe-2 flights at 3000-4000 meters and do dive bombing attacks only leaving the target area on the deck.

Shhhhhhhhh! OpSEC OpSEC OpSEC! 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, [_FLAPS_]Diggun said:

Shhhhhhhhh! OpSEC OpSEC OpSEC! 

 

Oops :)Now we're going to have to fly on the deck and use the Pe-2's rocket barrage feature just to mix things up!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P-38s, there were 3 groups operating them in 9th AF on D-Day, they flew a variety of missions, AG, fighter sweeps, bomber escort, etc. 2 were gradually converted to P-51s and P-47s, but one group flew P-38s al the way to VE-day. Nothing really wrong with P-38s as you see in game, just that P-47s or P-51s were better in certain aspects.

 

The droop snoot mod would be interesting, but it seems to have seen limited use. Droop snoot planes were used when P-38 units were used as level bomber which seems to have been infrequent. In a AG role, P-38s seem to have been employed usually like we see in game, with each plane bombing individually.

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

×
×
  • Create New...