Arado 234 Blitz Bomber

[Avimimus]

5 hours ago, sevenless said:

I´m sure that will follow in due time

 

Was the periscope on all aircraft?

 

I assume the BZA is integrated into the periscopic sight (as in Il-2 1946)?

[sevenless]

Just now, Avimimus said:

 

Was the periscope on all aircraft?

 

I assume the BZA is integrated into the periscopic sight (as in Il-2 1946)?

 

Yes and yes

 

 

[Zinovy_Kolobanov]

 

[=KG76=flyus747]

Was the Ar 234 primarily used as a bomber or reconnaissance?

 

Wikipedia states it was primarily for recon but didn't offer any examples or history of it.

[LukeFF]

3 hours ago, =KG76=flyus747 said:

Was the Ar 234 primarily used as a bomber or reconnaissance?

 

Wikipedia states it was primarily for recon but didn't offer any examples or history of it.

 

Bomber primarily - that Wikipedia article is awful and in need of a lot of revision.

Edited October 30, 2021 by LukeFF

[=KG76=flyus747]

28 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Bomber primarily - that Wikipedia article is awful and in need of a lot of revision.

What's your evidence?

[Avimimus]

1 minute ago, =KG76=flyus747 said:

What's your evidence?

 

Probably a lot of reading. I'm sure LukeFF could recommend a few books.

[=KG76=flyus747]

4 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

Probably a lot of reading. I'm sure LukeFF could recommend a few books.

I don't doubt he reads a lot on the subject but if you're gonna convince anyone, you need some proof.

 

I'd like to think that it was primarily a bomber but I don't know the history of the Ar 234 pre Dec-1944

[AndyJWest]

I'd not put too much weight on what Wikipedia has to say on the Ar 234, but the Smithsonian Museum seems to emphasise its reconnaissance role:

https://www.si.edu/object/arado-ar-234-b-2-blitz-lightning:nasm_A19600312000 

[Avimimus]

From what I gather, Arado had always envisioned a multi-role aircraft... with some of the design studies leading up to the Ar-234 having forward firing armament etc. It was rushed into a recon role (as a result of other reconnaissance platforms becoming increasingly vulnerable), and then employed as a bomber - but Arado had always thought of it as a recon, fighter, night-fighter, bomber, and armed reconnaissance airframe.

 

1 hour ago, =KG76=flyus747 said:

I don't doubt he reads a lot on the subject but if you're gonna convince anyone, you need some proof.

 

I totally agree with the idea that a [citation needed] should always be welcome in any conversation

Edited October 30, 2021 by Avimimus

[AndyJWest]

Any conclusive answer to this question would probably require data on how may missions of each type were actually flown. Can it be found anywhere?

[sevenless]

1 hour ago, AndyJWest said:

Any conclusive answer to this question would probably require data on how may missions of each type were actually flown. Can it be found anywhere?

 

Yes by example here:

 

Arado 234 Blitz by Richard Smith Eddie Creek - AbeBooks

 

Only one digit numbers of planes were operational in recce units. The bulk went to KG 76.

 

Example scan:

 

Edited October 30, 2021 by sevenless

[LukeFF]

7 hours ago, =KG76=flyus747 said:

What's your evidence?

 

7 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

Probably a lot of reading. I'm sure LukeFF could recommend a few books.

 

7 hours ago, =KG76=flyus747 said:

I don't doubt he reads a lot on the subject but if you're gonna convince anyone, you need some proof.

 

I'd like to think that it was primarily a bomber but I don't know the history of the Ar 234 pre Dec-1944

 

Yes, there is plenty of information out there on where and when the Ar 234 was used, both online and in books I do own, yes. 

 

As for why I didn't provide a longer answer, I'm not going to peck away a reply when I'm on my phone. 

[=KG76=flyus747]

21 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

 

 

Yes, there is plenty of information out there on where and when the Ar 234 was used, both online and in books I do own, yes. 

 

As for why I didn't provide a longer answer, I'm not going to peck away a reply when I'm on my phone. 

Yeah everyone, there's plenty of info that the Ju52 was used as a night fighter both online and in books I own but don't ask me to "peck away a reply when I'm on my phone" not that I'll even follow up when I get the chance, just believe what I say, it's true.

 

 

 

 

On 10/30/2021 at 11:02 AM, sevenless said:

 

Yes by example here:

 

Arado 234 Blitz by Richard Smith Eddie Creek - AbeBooks

 

Only one digit numbers of planes were operational in recce units. The bulk went to KG 76.

 

Example scan:

 

Thank you so much for providing these examples bro ?

[LukeFF]

15 minutes ago, =KG76=flyus747 said:

Yeah everyone, there's plenty of info that the Ju52 was used as a night fighter both online and in books I own but don't ask me to "peck away a reply when I'm on my phone" not that I'll even follow up when I get the chance, just believe what I say, it's true.

 

That snarkiness is unwarranted. When I'm trying to start my day and am also trying to keep a two year old happy at the same time, yes, I'm not going to go into as long a reply as I might at another time - and yes, even more so when I'm on my phone. 

[ITAF_Airone1989]

4 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

That snarkiness is unwarranted. When I'm trying to start my day and am also trying to keep a two year old happy at the same time, yes, I'm not going to go into as long a reply as I might at another time - and yes, even more so when I'm on my phone. 

I'm sure flyus is not a two year old.

 

Oh, wait...

[=KG76=flyus747]

4 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

That snarkiness is unwarranted. When I'm trying to start my day and am also trying to keep a two year old happy at the same time, yes, I'm not going to go into as long a reply as I might at another time - and yes, even more so when I'm on my phone. 

Those are excuses. May as well have not answered at all so there would be no reason to ask further for explanations. Instead, you give a short unexplained answer and don't even follow up. You still have not. 

 

If you don't have time to explain then I would much rather you not contribute to this topic in that manner. This is an effort to keep this topic focused on the Ar 234. Keeping the posts relevant and efficient, surely you understand.

 

The reason you received that "snarkiness" is because you never offered to follow up. 

 

What reasons do we have to believe the Ar 234 was primarily a bomber and not a reconnaissance aircraft?

 

4 hours ago, ITAF_Airone1989 said:

I'm sure flyus is not a two year old.

 

Oh, wait...

It depends on the day.

Edited November 1, 2021 by =KG76=flyus747

[Avimimus]

Here is a question to mull over:

 

Do we really want the Lotfe 7K?

 

The way I look at it - level bombing while flying with an autopilot (and not having a second crew member to act as lookout) is less than ideal. I can see why a shallow dive with the BZA computer was preferred!

 

Furthermore the Lofte 7 takes up a lot of room between the pilot's legs in what is a quite cramped cockpit - remove the Lofte and vision forward/down is much improved! This makes it easier to navigate and to line-up/acquire a target. Remove the Lofte and you get... what... 10 to 40 degrees more downward visibility?

 

So, maybe we should petition to have it removable - I think they are still early enough in development for that to be possible?

[ITAF_Airone1989]

2 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 remove the Lofte and vision forward/down is much improved! 

I guess that the bombsight will be the same as ju88 and h111.

This mean that you can switch to manual mode and adjust the angle to watch where you want.

 

[Yogiflight]

8 hours ago, Avimimus said:

The way I look at it - level bombing while flying with an autopilot (and not having a second crew member to act as lookout) is less than ideal. I can see why a shallow dive with the BZA computer was preferred!

The other side of the coin is, with horizontal bombing you stay flying fast and high, with bombing in a shallow dive you are fast but low after your bombrun and therefore much easier to attack for Allied fighters.

[BlitzPig_EL]

I can't imagine that level bombing in the Arado will be terribly accurate.  At the speed it will be cruising at to stay safe from fighters you will have to start your run a great deal further from the target than you would with an He111 or Ju88.  Will you be even able to see your target from that distance?  Will you be able to make small course corrections fast enough?  I have my doubts.

 

There is a reason why glide bombing became the preferred method with this aircraft, after all.

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I can't imagine that level bombing in the Arado will be terribly accurate.  At the speed it will be cruising at to stay safe from fighters you will have to start your run a great deal further from the target than you would with an He111 or Ju88.  Will you be even able to see your target from that distance?  Will you be able to make small course corrections fast enough?  I have my doubts.

 

There is a reason why glide bombing became the preferred method with this aircraft, after all.

 

Yes, for all of those reasons that you just listed, plus also the fact that formation flying in the plane was very difficult, which would have resulted in everyone having to slow down in order to stay in formation. That of course would have then negated the plan's biggest advantage, which was speed.

[Avimimus]

9 hours ago, ITAF_Airone1989 said:

I guess that the bombsight will be the same as ju88 and h111.

This mean that you can switch to manual mode and adjust the angle to watch where you want.

 

Yes, but I was talking about visually acquiring the target initially... it can be quite useful to have good visibility forward/downward prior to putting one's eyes to the sight.

 

Furthermore, if one is using the BZA computer instead... then the Lofte means you have to start your dive earlier. Whereas with the Lofte removed one can wait longer (as the target remains visible between your legs, and then dive on it to acquire it with the persicopic sight and get the release solution.

[=KG76=flyus747]

5 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I can't imagine that level bombing in the Arado will be terribly accurate.  At the speed it will be cruising at to stay safe from fighters you will have to start your run a great deal further from the target than you would with an He111 or Ju88.  Will you be even able to see your target from that distance?  Will you be able to make small course corrections fast enough?  I have my doubts.

 

There is a reason why glide bombing became the preferred method with this aircraft, after all.

The reasons players don't level bomb in IL2 are hardly the same as the reasons made historically.

 

In IL2, players don't have:

1) the patience to climb to space

 

2) the shortcomings of rendering (some buildings render far out enough to let players plan ahead, but not all, in fact, many don't) and the buildings that do render will first appear "alive" and then transition to "dead" as you near them. Often times it's already too late to alter your course and you end up dropping bombs on the dead buildings you would have known had they rendered in much earlier.

 

3) In multiplayer, because players don't care about deaths they do not give much credence to the threat of AA and that greatly influences how they choose to fly. How would you attack the target if you only had one life (after which you could never ever play IL2 again)?

 

4) They also care about their "scores" and "stats" and because they can't level bomb accurately, the conclusion is therefore that dive bombing is the way to go.

 

But that's the IL2 player's reason, they are not the reasons given in real life...

 

Historically, amongst the veteran pilots assigned to test the new bomber, there was debate on how to use the Ar 234 as a bomber. Do we level bomb or glide bomb?

 

Position 1: Level bombing from horizontal flight.

Biggest supporter: Oberleutnant Erich Sommer (took part in first reconnaissance mission for Ar 234)

 

Oberleutnant Sommer...believed that the best method of bombing with the Ar 234 would be from high level. This would allow the pilot to make best use of the Arado’s speed advantage over enemy fighters. Bombing accuracy could be achieved by using the Lotfe 7K sight, with course control aided by the PDS 11. ‘Dive-bombing’, Sommer wrote, ‘would be necessarily inaccurate because of the high gliding speed without the braking effect of idling propellers. It would also lead the pilot into the flak danger zone and air turbulence at lower altitudes.’

 

In regards to the BZA glide bombing periscope:

In flight at over 750 km/h, vibrations in the BZA periscope occurred that caused the target image to disappear completely. These vibrations in the optical field of vision are probably caused by the aerodynamically insufficient cockpit frames and the unstable installation of the projecting part of the periscope.’

 

Note the reasons given for no dive bombing.

- equipment mounting insufficient for use. Not applicable to IL2.

- flak. In IL2, flak is hardly a threat to those who don't care about deaths. Not applicable to IL2.

- air turbulence. This aspect is not modelled to the extent requiring players to alter their performance therefore, it is not applicable to IL2.

 

 

Position 2: Glide Bombing, NOT dive bombing.

Biggest supporter was Hauptmann Diether Lukesch (lead the first Ar 234 bombing mission).

 

Lukesch considered it ‘irresponsible to order horizontal bombing without any possibility of being able to see what was happening behind us’. It was Lukesch’s view that with an aircraft like the Hawker Tempest V, the Allies had the means to engage at 6000-10,000 m. Yet Sommer flew some 70 ‘straight-line’ long-range reconnaissance missions and was never intercepted by enemy fighters as long as he retained high altitude and flew fast.

 

 

Since most people don't know that level bombing was seriously considered I think I should shed some light on how testing it went.

 

On 5 August Oberleutnant Dr Spadiut and Hauptmann Schilling of 7./KG 76 carried out what was possibly the first ‘formation training flight’ in a Rotte (two-aircraft tactical element) using Ar 234s...After take-off, the lead aircraft flew at 350 km/h at an altitude of 500 m until it was joined by the second machine. Both aircraft then flew at 450 km/h, increasing altitude to 4000 m, at which height various manoeuvring, positioning and formation experiments were carried out – all successfully...There remained, however, one fundamental problem that affected formation flying, the safety of the pilot and tactical capability – the lack of rearward vision from the cockpit. Oberst Storp reported that; ‘The lack of vision to the rear makes it extremely difficult to carry out a formation flight, and the sudden overshooting of an aircraft creates the very great danger of ramming. The lead aircraft in the training formation had at only one time during the entire flight seen the aircraft located behind. The leading aircraft does not have a picture of the shape and strength of the formation it is leading.’ To overcome this problem it was proposed to install a rear-view sight to the rear above and to the rear below, as well as the development of an all-round-vision periscope viewing upwards and downwards, to allow the pilot to maintain sight of aircraft flying in formation behind them, thus ensuring both his and their safety.

 

The lack of situational awareness made it difficult to level bomb in formation but noteworthy is that it was still successful during testing.

 

Ultimately, level bombing was not viable because the issues with the PDS 11 autopilot system were not hashed out in time. This was required so the pilot could focus on the Lotfe 7K bombsight instead of flying. It was also not used because in 16 Nov 1944, an operational unit was quickly fielded under Hauptmann Lukesch (believed in dive bombing with Ar 234) and that pretty much killed any hope of the Ar 234 as a level bomber.

 

I feel it necessary to note how Lukesch conducted this "glide" bombing in real life. 

A Gleitangriff (glide attack)... saw the Arados nose down gently from 4000 m to 2000 m, from which height they released their bombs.

 

In IL2, the terms dive bombing and glide bombing are used interchangeably leading to confusion. Most are actually referring to glide bombing or low angle bombing but still call it "dive bombing". In IL2, players will "dive bomb" targets and release from altitudes of 10-20m above ground ensuring remarkable accuracy. In real life, this particular "glide bombing" method only permitted them a hard deck of 2000m.

 

Try dropping a SC1000 on the Remagen bridges from 2000m altitude in a new aircraft, let alone, brand new jet technology and you have less than 100hrs in it.

 

Personally I think IL2 should include BOTH options for the longevity of the aircraft in IL2 series but that's just me.

 

All excerpts were sourced from various points in Ar234 Bomber and Reconnaissance Units by Robert Forsyth and Nick Beale

 

 

 

Edited November 1, 2021 by =KG76=flyus747
Added book title, fixed grammar

[Avimimus]

Hi all,

 

I stumbled upon this video of an Il-2 1946 mod that removes the Lofte - I thought you might be interested in seeing the improvement (considering I'd speculated about it):

 

 

[Bolo_]

what about Peil G6 radio navigation system ??????????

this system were mounted on some Ar-234B's

[LukeFF]

The Ar 234 isn't getting any more updates. 

 

And please don't necropost. 🙂