anyone gonna fly the ju88c6 in mp?

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Thanks for the info @Retnek on the Ju 88R. Tough we disagree in regards to the weapons package ? while not very succesful IRL the 37mm for the Bf 110G is interesting for using in game, and for example in online wars it's quite capable tank buster with it's impressive ammo load, it can devastate an entire column if let be, while the Ju 87G is rather limited with it's 12 shots per gun.

Similar stuff for the Me 410, I hope to see the 50mm for use as anti tank, and was excited for the possible 2 x MK 103 option too, which looks like it also was in the "limited success IRL" camp.


 

Edited May 1, 2020 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Lusekofte]

19 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

while not very succesful IRL the 37mm for the Bf 110G is

This is why I am against cannon packs in this game. 
it simply do not penalty recoil, aerodynamic and weight sufficient. There is a reason for not wanting to have them. And it foes not show in this game

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

1 hour ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

it simply do not penalty recoil, aerodynamic and weight sufficient. There is a reason for not wanting to have them. And it foes not show in this game

 

They do have a quite significant penalty, with the 37mm the 110 isn't nowhere near as able to defend itself as it is without it.

For example a couple tests showing speed and time to climb penalty with the 37mm gunpod :

Top speed at 1.3 ata without the 37mm cannon, 50% fuel: 494 km/h          Time to climb to 5000 meters: 5 min 28 s average climb rate 15,2 m/s

Top speed at 1.3 ata with the 37mm cannon, 50% fuel: 442 km/h               Time to climb to 5000 meters: 6 min 54 s, average climb rate 12,1 m/s      (26% time increase or 20% reduction in average climb rate).

These are pretty big performance penalties.

Edited May 1, 2020 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Night0wl]

I agree that the recoil doesnt look all that much ingame, also think the sound of the bk 3.7 could be a bit beefier but i think the stuka really becomes a lot worse to fly with the bks installed, even though i can easily rack up a few tank kills with it.

[69TD_Hajo_Garlic]

I prefer twin engine aircraft that are able to dive well with a 20mm or 4 so I will hop in it

i play this for fun, not muh stats 

[III/JG53Frankyboy]

about a 3 MG151 armament Option:

i have seen Pictures where the nose MG-FF was replaced by a MG151 , easy to see by ist longer Barrel. But i NEVER saw those longer barrels aka MG151 in the gondola !

 

and btw, give the 88A-4 a MG-FF Option (that would remove  the bombsight !) and it would be far superiour over the C-6 in ground attack IMHO

[=RvE=Windmills]

9 hours ago, Retnek said:

 

But when discussing features for the IL2-GB 777-studios often point on very limited resources. That absolutely ok with me, it is a business after all. So I hope they try to model the mainstream and do not waste time with rare-bird-options.

 

Limited resources sounds like a good reason to make more variations/mods. Giving extra roles to planes you have already modeled and made an FM for. It would be a reason not to make random planes that don't sell or fit into a setting. Building and researching a plane takes so much time that not pushing in as many small variations that are reasonably possible is putting that huge effort to waste. It's like going 96% of the way and then saying nah, we're not putting in that next 2%.

 

[Avimimus]

On 4/29/2020 at 6:12 AM, 216th_LuseKofte said:

It will be a death trap either way you look at it. Attacking bombers gunners will get you. Groundtargets fighters will get you. Irony is ME 410 will do its job better. 110 also. 
of course  I will fly it

 

I like how you ended that! ? A man after my own heart!

On 4/30/2020 at 8:53 PM, Retnek said:

Thx - it is always nice to see exotic knowledge is useful sometimes. I was really surprised to find the Ju-88 C-6 on the list of flyable planes, what a joy. But somehow strange, because the IL2-GB-series never showed much intention to simulate the western front strategic air war at night, where the overwhelming majority of C-6 were used for. So what else to do with that gem?

 

Nightfighting - at the Eastern Front due to lack of radar mainly was dusk- and dawn-operations. Lot's of slow IL-4 (we need them!), stay operational for a long time, long range, I think the NJG-100 had some Ju-88 destroyers.

 

Thanks for all of the info...!

 

1. I totally agree with you about the Il-4... it is such a historically important airplane, it would increase the maximum bombload available for the Russians - and it is slow enough for the Ju-88C to catch!

 

2. The mixed cannon armament (2xMG151 & 1xMG-FF) would be very interesting due to the different ballistics!

 

Questions:

 

1. Are those cannons depressed in the cross-section you posted earlier? Is this the case? If so - do you know why?

 

2. You mention the Ju-88C6 as inferior to the Beaufighter... do you have historical accounts to support this? From what I've read the Ju-88C should be faster than contemporary Coastal Command Beaufighters, and the Ju-88 also has a defensive gunner position... so I'd see it as quite competitive (if flown well).

 

Of course, we'd need a Beaufighter (as well as the Il-4) to test this theory in the sim  ...but I was wondering if you'd read anything!

 

[Retnek]

12 hours ago, Avimimus said:

1. Are those cannons depressed in the cross-section you posted earlier? Is this the case? If so - do you know why?

2. You mention the Ju-88C6 as inferior to the Beaufighter... do you have historical accounts to support this? From what I've read the Ju-88C should be faster than contemporary Coastal Command Beaufighters, and the Ju-88 also has a defensive gunner position... so I'd see it as quite competitive (if flown well).

Of course, we'd need a Beaufighter (as well as the Il-4) to test this theory in the sim  ...but I was wondering if you'd read anything!

1) Yes, all the blueprints and design-sketches for the fighter-models are done that way, pointing down much more than it seems to be usual for other airplanes. The radar-antennas of the Ju-88 are pointing down, too. So I think it might have been the way of a Ju-88 to fly with some more higher angle of attack than other planes.

 

2) Maybe except speed the Ju-88 C-6 afaik has been reported inferior to the Beau in any aspect of dogfight. But they were not much much away, so the pilots training and attitude should count a lot. The reports given at Goss and Neitzel point into an advantage of the Beau, too. Goss (c.a.) gives detailed lists about victories and losses, roughly counted 10 Beaus went down for 20 Ju-88, at least. And - to my surprise - he reported the detailed loss-reports, how the Ju-88 fighters were massacred during the early days of the invasion, too.

 

There's a nicely done overview published in a German magazine 1985:

 

 

 

[Avimimus]

Thanks! Very interesting! Sounds like it would be interesting to test, and the gun angles would be useful for strafing. I wonder what speed the Ju-88 would trim out to at that angle of attack? I hope the devs do model it accurately so we can find out (assuming their research doesn't uncover contradicting evidence anyway)!

 

P.S. I appreciate the quote in your signature.

[KG_S_Kalle_Kalutz82]

Quote

anyone gonna fly the ju88c6 in mp?

 

You might bet your own butt on it

 

...in other words - yessss

[FeuerFliegen]

Regarding the discussion of heavy cannons on planes in this sim; I love having them, but I do wish that the recoil was more realistic.  I'd love if there could be a way where, with something huge like a 50mm or 75mm cannon, if you already had some structural damage, shooting the gun would shake the plane so hard that it might turn that same damage into something worse

 

Does anyone know the ammo capacity for the C-6 cannons?

 

I wonder how much faster it is than the Ju88 we currently have, because of the fact that the external bomb racks are removed (which are pretty large).

 

What fills the space that is normally taken up by the internal bomb bay?  Seeing that the C-6 holds 10x 50kg bombs, instead of 28x 50kg bombs.

[PatrickAWlson]

On 4/29/2020 at 5:39 AM, Barnacles said:

I thought it was a fighter?

 

It's that too.  It gets confused.

[Avimimus]

On 5/1/2020 at 5:00 PM, Night0wl said:

I agree that the recoil doesnt look all that much ingame, also think the sound of the bk 3.7 could be a bit beefier but i think the stuka really becomes a lot worse to fly with the bks installed, even though i can easily rack up a few tank kills with it.

 

A Bf-110 is over 6 tons the the weight of a 37mm shell is a little over 1/10,000th of that.

 

There  is over a metres of 400km/h between the muzzle and the cockpit.

 

So recoil should mainly be vibration transmitted through the breach? Rather than the things we normally think of?

 

 

8 hours ago, SCG_FeuerFliegen said:

Does anyone know the ammo capacity for the C-6 cannons?

 

I wonder how much faster it is than the Ju88 we currently have, because of the fact that the external bomb racks are removed (which are pretty large).

 

What fills the space that is normally taken up by the internal bomb bay?  Seeing that the C-6 holds 10x 50kg bombs, instead of 28x 50kg bombs.

 

1) It depends on whether we're getting the Mg-FF/M or also getting MG-151 cannons. I'd have to look up the exact numbers but at least one of the Mg-FF cannons can be reloaded in flight (similar to the early models of the Bf-110)

2) ~494 km/h so only marginally faster

3) The bomb bay has Fuel tanks (to increase range)

 

Also, see my above comments on recoil. I've heard of aircraft losing cockpit instruments due to vibration from recoil... I think the exception might be twisting forces created by recoil. I once read that an Il-2 shouldn't fire 37mm wing cannons while diving at high speed because the recoil could reduce the rigidity of the wings leading to the aircraft disintegrating. However, that was a memory of a pilot and could well have been a myth at the time. I do know that the Mk-103 equipped Fw-190s had issues with loss of accuracy due to the insufficient of rigidity in the outer wings in resisting recoil.

Edited May 27, 2021 by Avimimus

[jollyjack]

On 4/29/2020 at 1:51 PM, ShamrockOneFive said:

Yeah, 100% I'll be flying it as an attack plane.

 

I always feel embarrassed a bit 'flying' nazi planes; rather spit at them with any spitfire and watch them go down ...

Or if there's an allies boat where you can aim and shoot at them. A GAZ truck on floaters mod?

4 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

The Yak9K certainly suffered from the recoil of it's 45mm gun.

 

So that's why i am better at it with the older YAKs ... back to the 9T and crawl up their ass first. Thanks for the tip.

[III/JG53Frankyboy]

16 hours ago, SCG_FeuerFliegen said:

 

What fills the space that is normally taken up by the internal bomb bay?  Seeing that the C-6 holds 10x 50kg bombs, instead of 28x 50kg bombs.

As you can see in the pictures above, a Ju88 has 2 bombbays. 

Each of them can carry a tank , or, the front one 18 SC50 bombs, the rear one 10 SC50 bombs.

To get a „usefull“ range , at least the front bay had a fuel tank, in most cases both bays.

That is ment for Destroyer and Bomber versions of the Ju88.

 

And i have still the same opinion, as nice it is to get a Ju88 Destroyer - a MG-FF armament modification (i know, means no Lotfe bombsight) for the Ju88A-4 would be a superiour plane for GreatBattle online play 

Edited May 27, 2021 by III/JG53Frankyboy

[69TD_Hajo_Garlic]

It has a solid nose armament and rear gunners, everything I need. I’m just not the best at take off/landing in the standard ju88 and the solid nose will make taxiing and lining up more difficult. 

9 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Mk-103 equipped Fw-190s

I think you mean mk108s.

103s were never operationally used on the 190 as far as I know

[JG1_Vonrd]

Yeah, I'll certainly fly it in MP.

To my mind the main advantage for the gun nose will be in AAA suppression / destruction while doing ground attack. Like a 110 with more bomb load and the ability to ripple drop. An element or, better yet a flight of them will probably do short work on any target if flown in coordination. And it at least presents the possibility of *maybe... just maybe* downing an enemy fighter who's attacking your mates.

[Avimimus]

4 hours ago, Hajo_Garlic said:

I think you mean mk108s.

103s were never operationally used on the 190 as far as I know

 

No, I meant the Mk-103s. It looks like there may have been upwards of a dozen aircraft used for testing (including some combat tests)... but it was never operationally accepted in to service - one of the major reasons being that the outer wing was sufficient to handle the recoil of the Mk-108 but was having trouble with the recoil of the Mk-103.

[FeuerFliegen]

4 hours ago, JG1_Vonrd said:

Like a 110 with more bomb load

 

The 110 holds more bombs with the C-6, both in weight, and number of bombs.

[JG1_Vonrd]

18 hours ago, SCG_FeuerFliegen said:

 

The 110 holds more bombs with the C-6, both in weight, and number of bombs.

Ah, I didn't realize that the bomb load is reduced in the "C" versions. Looks like 10 SC50s? Still, I like being able to set delay and number released to do ripple drops. 

[Avimimus]

21 minutes ago, JG1_Vonrd said:

Ah, I didn't realize that the bomb load is reduced in the "C" versions. Looks like 10 SC50s? Still, I like being able to set delay and number released to do ripple drops. 

 

Plus that bomb-load is internal... which means essentially no penalty in terms of drag... something which definitely isn't true of the Bf-110... and on a low fuel-load it'll probably handle a lot better with that bomb load than a Bf-110 would.

 

P.S. Ju-88A were also sometimes flown with the additional internal tanks and a reduced bomb load.

[III/JG53Frankyboy]

four tanks in the wings had 1680 l,  the front bombbay could carry 1.220 l , the rear bombbay 680 l = max  3580 l = range ~ something above 2000km

 

so, without any fuel in the bays, the Ju88s range was somewhat „limited“ 

 

In gameplay not important IIRC 

[Juri_JS]

In the game it won't really matter, because the maps aren't large enough, but its range was the main reason why the Ju-88 C-6 was selected to operate over the Bay of Biscay and in the special train-busting units in the east, although the Bf-110 was probably superior in all other aspects.

 

I've recently found some original maps from 1943 showing the target locations of train busting units. They were often 400 km and more behind the frontline and no other fighter/zerstörer could operated in these areas. The chances to encounter enemy fighters so far behind the front was very low, so  the Ju-88 C-6s inferiority in air combat didn't really matter. To avoid  encounters with fighters enroute to the target the front was crossed at high altitude or by hiding in clouds.

 

Another interesting information I've discovered are the loadouts used by KG 1's train busting staffel in these missions. They were either:

 

- 10 SD 50

- 10 SD 70

- 8 SD 50 + 2 LC 50

 

Apparently the SC 50 wasn't used by the unit. Moreover I never read before that the C-6 could carry the SD 70. The LC 50 illumination bombs were used in night missions. The two LC 50s had to be dropped first, before the 8 SDs could be dropped.

 

Sometimes Ju-88 C-6s in the east also flew pathfinder missions for other bombers. In these missions they would carry only LC 50 bombs to mark/illuminate targets. This could be an interesting mission type for multiplayer, so let's hope we will get the LC 50. Me-410 units used the LC 50 too.

 

 

 

Edited May 30, 2021 by Juri_JS

[jeanba]

Thank your 

Lot of missions ideas

[Juri_JS]

19 minutes ago, jeanba said:

Lot of missions ideas

At the moment there's a problem in the game. When using historical low level attack tactics, the trains AAA will fire at it's own carriages. I've reported it to the devs a while ago, but the issue was never fixed.

[ITAF_Rani]

To hunt Dakota with VIPs inside...???

[jollyjack]

46 minutes ago, Juri_JS said:

At the moment there's a problem in the game. When using historical low level attack tactics, the trains AAA will fire at it's own carriages. I've reported it to the devs a while ago, but the issue was never fixed.

 

I noticed that too, but never realized it was a bug. Shoot yoruself in the foot, as draft dodgers do?

Edited May 30, 2021 by jollyjack

[jeanba]

3 hours ago, Juri_JS said:

At the moment there's a problem in the game. When using historical low level attack tactics, the trains AAA will fire at it's own carriages. I've reported it to the devs a while ago, but the issue was never fixed.

Interesting

Few months ago, I made a quick mission by night with a He111h, and I did not notice this

[Juri_JS]

43 minutes ago, jeanba said:

Interesting

Few months ago, I made a quick mission by night with a He111h, and I did not notice this

Approach the train at treetop level from the front or from behind and see what happens.

[jeanba]

Ok, I am always attacking with a 30 to 60 degrees angle off

[Juri_JS]

30 minutes ago, jeanba said:

Ok, I am always attacking with a 30 to 60 degrees angle off

Specialized train-busting units usually attacked by following the tracks at extremely low altitude (20 m). This gave AAA less time to react and bombs could be dropped along the whole length of the train. Earlier other tactics were tried, but they proved less effective.

Edited May 30, 2021 by Juri_JS

[Avimimus]

13 hours ago, Juri_JS said:

- 10 SD 70

- 8 SD 50 + 2 LC 50

 

Apparently the SC 50 wasn't used by the unit. Moreover I never read before that the C-6 could carry the SD 70.

 

An extremely interesting post overall!

 

I just thought I'd pull out one of the smaller pieces of information - the ability to carry the SD70 means an extra 200kg of bombs in that bay! Which is equivalent to the bomb loads of a lot of tactical bombers at the start of the war!

[JG_deserteagle540]

A FW190 with mk103 cannon.

A Ju88 with two torpedoes and rocket assistance for take-off.

A Ju88P-1 with the BK7.5 cannon

[II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson]

What would preclude the C6 from carrying bombs under wings and in bay just like the A4?

[BlitzPig_EL]

It has no under wing racks.  And it does carry a reduced bomb load internally.  Remember it was intended as a long range heavy fighter and marine patrol aircraft, hence, fuel tanks took up much of the available space in the bomb bays.

 

[Juri_JS]

1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

It has no under wing racks.  And it does carry a reduced bomb load internally.  Remember it was intended as a long range heavy fighter and marine patrol aircraft, hence, fuel tanks took up much of the available space in the bomb bays.

 

It's strange that Nick Beale's Ghostbomber site mentions Ju-88 C/R of ZG 1 dropping AB 500 cluster bombs over Sword Beach:

http://www.ghostbombers.com/Bongart/ZG1_a.html

 

AB 500 could only be carried on external racks. Maybe Mr. Beale made a mistake, but another possiblity is that some ZG 1 aircraft had ETC racks for using droptanks, which would make sense for a maritime patrol unit, and these racks were later used to carry AB-500s.

 

Edited June 6, 2021 by Juri_JS

[Avimimus]

25 minutes ago, Juri_JS said:

It's strange that Nick Beale's Ghostbomber site mentions Ju-88 C/R of ZG 1 dropping AB 500 cluster bombs over Sword Beach:

http://www.ghostbombers.com/Bongart/ZG1_a.html

 

AB 500 could only be carried on external racks. Maybe Mr. Beale made a mistake, but another possiblity is that some ZG 1 aircraft had ETC racks for using droptanks, which would make sense for a maritime patrol unit, and these racks were later used to carry AB-500s.

 

If this is indeed true... then we should find the evidence and get it to the devs quickly!

[Juri_JS]

4 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

If this is indeed true... then we should find the evidence and get it to the devs quickly!

So far I couldn't find further evidence. Maybe more information can be found in "Bloody Biscay" by Chris Goss, which I don't own.

[Avimimus]

It seems like a bunch of the variants could be equipped with ETC racks if necessary... including the Ju-88G. This might have been to increase patrol endurance... but it also seems likely experienced night-flying crews could be used for intruder or bombing work in an emergency (e.g. Ju-88C were deployed during the Ardennes offensive in a night attack role). Actually documenting which units had ETC racks and which used them for bombs sometimes will be more work. Anyway, there is some info here:

 http://www.samolotypolskie.pl/samoloty/1423/126/Junkers-Ju-88C