In praise of the Ju-88C (and why we need more aircraft like it)

[oc2209]

1 hour ago, dannytherat said:

The radar war being fought between the RAF and the Luftwaffe from about 1943 onwards is really interesting (to me at least) with the to and fro of measure and countermeasure. I imagine it would be incredibly difficult to implement in game though, and probably of limited appeal - not least because of mission durations in the region of four to six hours or so in terms of the nightfighters for historical accuracy, and obviously also the vexed question of implementing radar convincingly in a game setting.

 

Right, it is a very interesting period to study, but translating that into the sim is another matter.

 

I think it would be a complex CPU drain to have real radar. Ground and plane alike.

 

The sim already has ways of tracking planes that don't involve radar. We could use these methods to broadly resemble radar without needing the sim to calculate it.

 

Thus we could have genuine night fighters in the sim--including the worse handling and drag made by the Germans' giant antenna arrays, schräge musik, having Mosquitos hunt the Germans while the Germans hunt bombers--without the fuss of having the devs make up an entire radar system first.

 

The intercept missions could work similarly to how daylight ones work. We'd be vectored to a general intercept area, whereupon our AI radar operator would direct us to nearby bombers we pick up from the 'bomber stream' (that wouldn't, of course, be part of an endless procession of Lancasters). And in between all of this, some Mosquitos would try to kill us. It could all be great fun, without needless complexity.

 

And then the British could get what amounts to radar-directed free hunts. With a Mosquito already modelled, getting a specific radar-nosed variant into the sim would be a little easier.

 

(and all of the above would necessitate the addition of more Ju-88 variants, naturally)

Edited March 18, 2022 by oc2209

[BlitzPig_EL]

Back to the C6...

 

We flew it in the attack role last night in one of my missions.  Our primary was a US artillery company, that was defended by an attached AAA unit, complicated by a two ship flight of Typhoons in the area.

 

Our first sortie ended with 100 percent losses of our four ship flight, with minor losses of the artillery unit.  Undaunted, we tried again, with slightly better results, but I crashed on the way back to base because of being shot to pieces by the AAA. All crew lost in the crash, result, about one quarter of the arty destroyed for , ummm, 100 percent losses of the C6s, and one Typhoon shot down.

 

It's clear to us that the C6 is a very niche aircraft, that has a very narrow mission profile that would allow for survival, much less success.

 

In light of these findings, I will be working on an anti shipping mission, far far away from any air opposition or ground based anti aircraft guns.

 

It's a wonderful model in search of a purpose in the sim.

 

Edited March 18, 2022 by BlitzPig_EL

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

It's clear to us that the C6 is a very niche aircraft, that has a very narrow mission profile that would allow for survival, much less success.

 

I think a lot depends on the mission designer. 

 

By the way - I flew an AQMB (old campaign system) mission on the Stalingrad map. I led my Ju-88C flight up an extra 250 metres in order to give us a bit of an advantage. My wingmen jumped the Pe-2 flight (shooting down two of them), then proceeded to take out a P-40 and an La-5 in the subsequent dogfights while I got separated and took out an Il-2... five kills for no losses. I was pretty shocked.

 

 

7 hours ago, dannytherat said:

I may be wrong, but I don't believe the Mosquito FB.VI carried Serrate. As far as I know that was only used on the Mosquito NF.II (and Beaufighters).

 

One would think! Serrate was equipped on some FB.VI as their sole way of hunting night fighters (they didn't carry radars - unlike the NF series). I researched this when I was trying to figure out what the bare minimum would be for a night fighter sim - and it was Ground control vectoring, any Lichtenstein radar (Ju-88C6b and Bf-110G-4), and serrate (for the FB.VI which were retrofitted with it).

 

We may well get ground control in a future module (BoN already has ground and ship based fighter control radars modeled). I think the German night fighters may have been equipped with a more advanced night landing system - so depending on the year, that could be additional work (note: also likely required if they ever model the Do-217 or Ju-188). So the additional work might just be these two systems. That said, a British radar would also be neat, as would Naxos or FuG 227 Flensburg (passive homing) as it'd produce more symmetrical game-play. But the point is that adding Ju-88C6b and a night-hunting Mosquito FB.VI is possible by modelling just two systems (something third parties did in Il-2 1946). I'm not saying it should be a priority, or is necessarily commercially ideal - just that it is probably more possible than anyone thinks. I'd personally prioritise fleshing out the existing plane-sets I think (maybe adding an Il-4, Wellington, or Beaufighter for the Ju-88C6 to have an easier target for it to catch) or adding something like WWII artillery spotters with relatively deep gameplay (i.e. ability to select fire mission type and interact with multiple types of artillery in the same mission)?

Edited March 18, 2022 by Avimimus

[Avimimus]

6 hours ago, oc2209 said:

Thus we could have genuine night fighters in the sim--including the worse handling and drag made by the Germans' giant antenna arrays, schräge musik, having Mosquitos hunt the Germans while the Germans hunt bombers--without the fuss of having the devs make up an entire radar system first.

 

The intercept missions could work similarly to how daylight ones work. We'd be vectored to a general intercept area, whereupon our AI radar operator would direct us to nearby bombers we pick up from the 'bomber stream' (that wouldn't, of course, be part of an endless procession of Lancasters). And in between all of this, some Mosquitos would try to kill us. It could all be great fun, without needless complexity.

 

That still requires working ground-control radars though - which would be pretty neat for daylight combat too (both in Normandy and in earlier scenarios in that theatre).

 

Anyway, I always thought 'what is the difference between ground control vectoring the pilot, and a dedicated AI radar operator in the rear seat vectoring the pilot'? Once one system is in place, it would seem that the other could be. However, it'd still require some modelling of radar ranges, beam widths etc. It is just that the player wouldn't see any of it... just hear about it from the AI vectoring reports.

 

As for Lancasters - it should be possible within the sim - with only one to three gunners, and fairly loose bomber streams (so new flights could be spawned when approaching the player and despawned when leaving the player area).

[=621=Samikatz]

Another method radarless Mosquitos used to bring down German night fighters was to sneakily patrol near known airfields and then pounce when the landing lights briefly came on

[Yogiflight]

16 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

I never felt a strong compulsion to fly at night before this update, but now, under a full moon at least, it's pretty enjoyable. The AI reacting to lighting conditions is definitely an unexpected plus.

 

This is making me mildly hopeful for some dedicated night fighters (sans radar, of course--we can live without it with a few workarounds) to be released someday. 

Did you try Jury's 'Night fighters over the Kuban - a Bf-110 G2 campaign'? It is worth trying it, if you like night fighing.

Edited March 18, 2022 by Yogiflight

[CUJO_1970]

1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

It's clear to us that the C6 is a very niche aircraft, that has a very narrow mission profile that would allow for survival, much less success.

 

It's the right plane at the wrong time ?  1942 aircraft released against a bunch of late war aircraft. Much more useful and contemporary Ju88 possibilities but too much time and effort required for time frame I guess.

 

I think it's a lot of fun to use for eastern front train/traffic busting or bomber hunting - and for those scenarios I'm glad to have it in the sim. It just doesn't fit that well with Normandy/Bodenplatte.

[CUJO_1970]

On 3/16/2022 at 3:43 PM, ROCKET_KNUT said:

And in the correct lighting it looks quite hot. ?

 

It is a nice toy to play with. 

 

Speaking of correct lighting:

[Avimimus]

42 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

It's the right plane at the wrong time ?  1942 aircraft released against a bunch of late war aircraft. Much more useful and contemporary Ju88 possibilities but too much time and effort required for time frame I guess.

 

I think it's a lot of fun to use for eastern front train/traffic busting or bomber hunting - and for those scenarios I'm glad to have it in the sim. It just doesn't fit that well with Normandy/Bodenplatte.

 

Yeah. I think, as the number of aircraft left-unmodelled decreases we'll see a bit more of this. The Ar-234 was active in Normandy, but the variant we're getting fits more with BoBP. The remaining Ju-88C-6a were used over the oceans and for night intruder work - but it is really a variant most suitable for Stalingrad and Kuban.

 

I personally think it isn't a bad thing - it increases variety and it benefits other modules (and linking modules together). I'm kind-of hoping for eventually getting a '45 East scenario and a '41-'44 Leningrad scenario after it (as the final Eastern scenario), as the broad time-span would allow adding a lot of aircraft that would synergise with other modules (e.g. Il-4 or SB-2, Fw-189, Ju-87D5, FW-190A4, I-153) that are already released... filling in gaps in all of them.

[CUJO_1970]

Just now, Avimimus said:

I personally think it isn't a bad thing - it increases variety and it benefits other modules (and linking modules together)

 

Definitely, I'm enjoying it - I can't wait to see some of the community skins for it as well.

[PatrickAWlson]

4 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Back to the C6...

 

We flew it in the attack role last night in one of my missions.  Our primary was a US artillery company, that was defended by an attached AAA unit, complicated by a two ship flight of Typhoons in the area.

 

Our first sortie ended with 100 percent losses of our four ship flight, with minor losses of the artillery unit.  Undaunted, we tried again, with slightly better results, but I crashed on the way back to base because of being shot to pieces by the AAA. All crew lost in the crash, result, about one quarter of the arty destroyed for , ummm, 100 percent losses of the C6s, and one Typhoon shot down.

 

It's clear to us that the C6 is a very niche aircraft, that has a very narrow mission profile that would allow for survival, much less success.

 

In light of these findings, I will be working on an anti shipping mission, far far away from any air opposition or ground based anti aircraft guns.

 

It's a wonderful model in search of a purpose in the sim.

 

 

Sounds well modeled then.  The plane was very successful at maritime interdiction as well as being useful as a long range train buster in the east.  It does not seem well suited for general ground attack duties and is definitely not well suited to be anywhere near an enemy single engine fighter.

[oc2209]

5 hours ago, Avimimus said:

That still requires working ground-control radars though - which would be pretty neat for daylight combat too (both in Normandy and in earlier scenarios in that theatre).

 

Anyway, I always thought 'what is the difference between ground control vectoring the pilot, and a dedicated AI radar operator in the rear seat vectoring the pilot'? Once one system is in place, it would seem that the other could be. However, it'd still require some modelling of radar ranges, beam widths etc. It is just that the player wouldn't see any of it... just hear about it from the AI vectoring reports.

 

From my perspective, no radar is necessary at all. Functionally speaking, that is. It can still be visually modelled into the relevant planes.

 

What I'm thinking of is the circle over certain mission objectives during cover sorties, wherein all friendly and enemy planes are tracked in real time. As in, when you're protecting a bridge crossing or a troop concentration, etc.

 

This is what it looks like:

 

Spoiler

 

So, my point is, why bother to have actual radar simulated, when there's already something in the sim that accomplishes the exact same end?

 

Just have ground control or plane-based radar operator AI vector us to targets, using the above type of tracking method. Obviously we won't see it, but the friendly AI can.

 

5 hours ago, Avimimus said:

As for Lancasters - it should be possible within the sim - with only one to three gunners, and fairly loose bomber streams (so new flights could be spawned when approaching the player and despawned when leaving the player area).

 

I was thinking exactly this solution for creating a bomber stream. British bombers spawn in, spawn out, along a certain path towards a likely bomber target. Never more than, say, 9 active at once, to lessen the CPU load.

[Docholiday]

On 3/17/2022 at 2:45 PM, Avimimus said:

 

The Ju-88C-6a is faster and has three fixed forward firing machine guns and three fixed forward firing cannons. It has one of its internal bomb-bays and one pair of external bomb racks removed (although its total maximum bomb-load is similar). There is also an option for a late cockpit with armoured glass and the rearward firing light machine-guns replaced by a heavy machine gun for defense. So, it is a long range naval fighter and intruder version (rather than a bomber version).

 

 

 

Yes - Good point - I've found that I wish it had some armour for the engines!

 

It is very good at clearing all of the anti-aircraft guns from a train, but it usually loses an engine in return. In the advanced quick mission generator I took out six anti-aircraft guns in it after bombing a target - however, four of those were heavy anti-aircraft guns - so only two were really a threat once I was down low.

 

Btw. It'd be neat to have flak suppression as a mission type (e.g. Typhoons).

 

 

 

Well, I think that was the point of the original post ? The Me-410 and Mosquito will also be pretty vulnerable when opposition is about too. Really the Spit XIV, Mustang III and Ar-234 are the 'competitive' ones. Anyway, it is definitely good to have a 'new best' in a plane-set, but having something unique and challenging is also worth it (especially for those of us who've been flying sims for more than two decades and think 'we've seen it all').

 

 

 

 

You are missing the Pe-3 in that list!! It would be as easy to do as the A-20G-1 (as both are similar to aircraft already researched by the team). By Stalingrad (and into the late war) the Pe-3 were usually flying reconnaissance - but in Moscow they were initially used for everything - attacking bombers, hitting ground targets, massing to attack German airfields (imagine twenty of them descending to strafe a Luftwaffe airfield).

 

You can try flying a sortie or two with the Pe-2 and then imagine what it'd be like with twice the firepower.

??

[ROCKET_KNUT]

20 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

Speaking of correct lighting:

Yeah, it works in poor lighting conditions as well.

And even the other way round.

It aint that easy using sh*** cals only though... 

Managed it anyway. ?

 

[oc2209]

9 hours ago, Avimimus said:

My wingmen jumped the Pe-2 flight (shooting down two of them), then proceeded to take out a P-40 and an La-5 in the subsequent dogfights while I got separated and took out an Il-2... five kills for no losses. I was pretty shocked.

 

I'm guessing the fighter kills were accomplished with head-on passes. It's also possible that the rear gunners got a kill.

 

Here's my most recent Ju-88C 'epic dogfight for the ages' with a P-40:

 

Spoiler

 

 

What's interesting is how the player's gunner seems really useless, but when attacking an AI plane, the gunners can pull off a night time ~300m kill shot (as I showed on page 1). I mean, you can plainly see just how wildly far off my gunner is on several occasions. This might have something to do with why people are complaining about online gunner performance being so awful. It's not that all AI gunners are bad; just the ones paired with human players.

 

Anyway, I only managed to catch the P-40 towards the end because he had a severe oil leak; his engine was probably only a few minutes from seizing.

Edited March 18, 2022 by oc2209

[BlitzPig_EL]

I'm embarrassed for that AI.

 

Really. 

[oc2209]

53 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I'm embarrassed for that AI.

 

Really. 

 

Ha ha, which one? My gunner or the P-40's?

 

P-40 was set to Ace, and I'm not sure what friendly gunner AI is set to when you're in duels.

 

I did lose a head-on versus the P-40, which is how I got the engine hit/fuel leaks/oil leak prior to the start of the recording. I only gave him a fuel leak in return, likely from my 7.9mm.

[oc2209]

Here, @BlitzPig_EL, I gave you 4 AI pilots to be embarrassed for:

 

Since it was a ten minute fight, it's too large a file for me to upload in a reasonable amount of time. I'll condense the fight into highlights.

 

We began 4v4, Ju-88Cs with a 13mm rear gun, an MG151/20 addition, and armored windscreen. A little under half fuel load. Facing 4 MiG-3s, no mods, 80% fuel load. Everyone is Ace level AI.

 

In the first merge, I do this:

 

Spoiler

 

AI is crippled and disengages.

 

Second MiG is brought down thusly:

 

Spoiler

 

Debris kill by one of my wingmen.

 

Third MiG is finished off by me, but after being heavily damaged by several cannon hits from my remaining two wingmen:

 

Spoiler

 

Here's a recording of the final kill:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Sadly, none of my wingmen survived. That visible landing light at the airfield is the crippled MiG from the first screenshot.

[CAFulcrum]

The grouped 20mm behave like saws on enemy bombers/heavies, get one 'hit' on fleeing aircraft and it seems to explode the entire tail, sending them ooc.  I've flown the quick mission generator a few times against PE2s, and while it's not really fast enough to catch them at proper bomber-attacking oblique angles, I was able to very slowly catch up to them and pick them off one at a time at long range before their yaks caught me.

The 7.62 on the other hand seems competely useless against aircraft.  Set up against a bunch of defenseless C47s, pouring lmg into them only seemed to create a few fuel leaks on the wings.  Guessing they're only appropriate to use on ground targets.

Overall though it's got an easily maneuverable and stable aim-point with a virtually one-shot cannon, and can score kills in the first few turns of a fight if the enemy is stupid about exposing themselves.  It just doesn't seem to have the speed to really do 'fighter' duty.  In my view that's what the false canopies are about -- make the enemy think they're dealing with a bomber so they make the mistake of doing something stupid like making a high pass and overshooting, or thinking they can manuever around the front of the ju88 to bleed its energy in a long term engagement, not aware they are exposing themselves to 3x20mm tightly grouped cannons in the process.

Edited March 19, 2022 by CAFulcrum
(correction: 20mm were never prop-synchronized on any plane...)

[oc2209]

9 hours ago, CAFulcrum said:

Overall though it's got an easily maneuverable and stable aim-point with a virtually one-shot cannon, and can score kills in the first few turns of a fight if the enemy is stupid about exposing themselves.  It just doesn't seem to have the speed to really do 'fighter' duty.  In my view that's what the false canopies are about -- make the enemy think they're dealing with a bomber so they make the mistake of doing something stupid like making a high pass and overshooting, or thinking they can manuever around the front of the ju88 to bleed its energy in a long term engagement, not aware they are exposing themselves to 3x20mm tightly grouped cannons in the process.

 

In real life, yes; that's about the only way the fake nose would've helped against fighters. Creating a very brief opportunity to deliver a crippling cannon blow.

 

So far in the sim, the best (i.e, worst, depending on perspective) thing the AI does, is a shallow descending turn that allows me to maintain my speed, or a shallow ascending turn, that allows me to raise my nose long enough to fire at where I expect the AI will be throughout the turn. If it would just maintain a hard level turn, there's nothing I could do to keep up, really.

 

Here's a bit of a 4v4 I did with Hurricanes. I deprived them of the boosted engine, but did give them extra ammo. I failed my first two attempts. On this third attempt, my flight didn't lose any planes. By the time the recording starts, the enemy AI has already lost 3 Hurricanes.

 

Spoiler

 

Not proud of my overall gunnery here, but I included it to show how many possible hit opportunities I had before I finally got him. I didn't watch the replay carefully enough to see how much I missed by, all the times I did miss.

[CUJO_1970]

I mean, it's a medium bomber from 1942 so...

[Luftschiff]

Quite enjoyed using it in a recon + anti-tank role against player driven tanks on Finnish, in coordination with friends on the ground.

It's relatively fast, stable, good view and can carry a decent bomb load. That said, Hostile P-47's absolutely pulverized it, often making me explode outright after only half a second of fire. I like the plane but as expected it's suicidal in '44/45 and I do think there were better options.

Looking forward to using it for earlier war scenarios though.

[BlitzPig_EL]

It fares better in 1943 on the Kuban, at least in the newest mission I have made with historic for period planes sets.  Searching over the Black Sea for VSS shipping, and interdicting trains and supply columns on the roads, with sparse, but not totally absent, enemy fighter activity.

 

It does take a different flying style because of it's size/speed/lack of maneuverability compared to the Bf110 G2 or a single engine attacker.  But it's good to have a new challenge, and learn new ways to achieve an objective.

Edited March 20, 2022 by BlitzPig_EL

[CUJO_1970]

What in the world is up with the nose bouncing all over the place, can't believe the nose would have been this unstable.

 

Pull the stick back/ let go and the nose bounces all over the place.

[oc2209]

47 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

What in the world is up with the nose bouncing all over the place, can't believe the nose would have been this unstable.

 

Pull the stick back/ let go and the nose bounces all over the place.

 

This is true. It's most noticeable when I'm trying to hit a fleeing fighter after looping over it. Because I essentially stall out of the loop, the speed difference between us is great, and there's only a brief period of time where it would be practical to fire at him (I still fire long beyond that period, naturally):

 

Spoiler

 

 

Precious seconds of accurate aiming are lost to the wobble.

 

Given the ways I'm able to abuse the plane in general, though, I'm not really complaining. But it is odd.

 

*Edit: if anyone's wondering why I almost crashed at the end, it was a failed victory roll that I aborted in the nick of time.

Edited March 21, 2022 by oc2209

[Avimimus]

12 hours ago, oc2209 said:

Precious seconds of accurate aiming are lost to the wobble.

 

Yes, that little bit of instability in pitch when rapidly increasing angle of attack is annoying. Under every other condition it seems to be a good gun-platform though. I've taken out bombers at very long ranges with it (with considerable fall of shot). I felt like I was in a warship actually.  

 

 

  

18 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

It does take a different flying style because of it's size/speed/lack of maneuverability compared to the Bf110 G2 or a single engine attacker. 

 

I get the size and speed reduction - but is it actually less maneuverable than the Bf-110 G2?

Edited March 21, 2022 by Avimimus

[BlitzPig_EL]

In that it is slow to respond to the helm, yes.  The 110 pulls out of dives more responsively, which is a real benefit when strafing, and skip bombing.  

 

Yes, the 88 is fully aerobatic, but so is an Extra 300.  Which do you think will initiate and complete a maneuver faster?

Edited March 21, 2022 by BlitzPig_EL

[CUJO_1970]

I was looking in load out section for engine upgrade but couldn't find it.

 

Any ideas?

 

[Luftschiff]

Having taken it out for a couple more sorties I have to say I'm really warming to it. Lots of firepower and flexible loadout, very pleasant to fly and good looking.
The VR head constraints are driving me nuts and it'll disintegrate the second a single engine fighter enters the gridspace but much like the macchi I just find the experience of piloting it to make up for all shortcomings. 

Expected to hate this craft, came away keen to fly it.

[oc2209]

12 minutes ago, Luftschiff said:

Having taken it out for a couple more sorties I have to say I'm really warming to it. Lots of firepower and flexible loadout, very pleasant to fly and good looking.
The VR head constraints are driving me nuts and it'll disintegrate the second a single engine fighter enters the gridspace but much like the macchi I just find the experience of piloting it to make up for all shortcomings. 

Expected to hate this craft, came away keen to fly it.

 

Ditto. I thought it'd be on my 'never fly' list.

[Avimimus]

6 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

I was looking in load out section for engine upgrade but couldn't find it.

 

Any ideas?

 

I haven't seen any evidence of an engine upgrade... there were a few people who wanted them to add a Ju-88R (or even Ju-88S) but the devs never mentioned it. The closet thing is the flame-hiders for the engine... to make you less visible at night... but that is all there is on the engine front.

 

Honestly, I'm pretty happy with the engines - they're quite reliable. Could do with some armour though!

[Avimimus]

13 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

In that it is slow to respond to the helm, yes.  The 110 pulls out of dives more responsively, which is a real benefit when strafing, and skip bombing.  

 

Yes, the 88 is fully aerobatic, but so is an Extra 300.  Which do you think will initiate and complete a maneuver faster?

 

Turn times in seconds:

 

Sea level:

Bf-109G6 = 21.7 at 270 km/h

Bf-110G2 = 23.5 at 270 km/h
Ju-88C6 = 26.8 at 250 km/h

 

At 3000 metres:

Bf-109G6: 27.4 seconds at 270 km/h

Bf-110G2: 31.2 seconds at 270 km/h
Ju-88C6: 39.4 seconds at 250 km/h

 

So that is a 14% difference at see level. With an 8% difference in optimal turn speed.

Edited March 22, 2022 by Avimimus

[BlitzPig_EL]

Yes, proving my point.  It flies like a, *ahem*, pig compared to the smaller Bf110 or the very much smaller Bf109.

 

Three seconds is an eternity in a low level combat situation.

[Avimimus]

I find it more docile in terms of handling... but... well, I'm eccentric. But if you are referring about the ability to win a turning fight... yes, three seconds is an eternity. I agree.

 

Interestingly:

Yak-1 and I-16 are at 19.2 and 19 seconds

The Spit IX is 17.7 seconds and Spit XIV 18.1 seconds

Yak 9 is 17.5 seconds!

Hurricane II is 16.8 seconds!

(and only 20.3 seconds at 3000 metres!)

 

So there are many fighters with two to five seconds faster turns than the Bf-109!

 

Honestly, I think it isn't the turn time which makes the Ju-88C vulnerable - but the relatively low roll rate, and the inability to sustain a turn for long periods of time... as well as being a huge target. I don't think it can fight in the vertical like a Bf-109, or use a superior roll rate like a Fw-190, or sustain its speed in a prolonged turn without losing altitude... but it is also probably closer to being viable if used very very cleverly than we'd think. That said, I'm not saying it is actually viable in a dogfight

[=621=Samikatz]

The Ju-88C is a 1941-ish spec bomber with front guns bolted on, I don't think comparing it to 1944 fighters is especially reasonable

 

What it feels like to me is an extremely long range equivalent to the Il-2 that trades versatility of arms for payload. The Il-2 can carry a wider variety of things, but the Ju-88 could potentially destroy more things in a sortie and is capable of diving a fair bit faster. They feel like decent counter-parts

[CountZero]

46 minutes ago, =621=Samikatz said:

The Ju-88C is a 1941-ish spec bomber with front guns bolted on, I don't think comparing it to 1944 fighters is especially reasonable

 

What it feels like to me is an extremely long range equivalent to the Il-2 that trades versatility of arms for payload. The Il-2 can carry a wider variety of things, but the Ju-88 could potentially destroy more things in a sortie and is capable of diving a fair bit faster. They feel like decent counter-parts

Yes it should be compared with Pe-2 in its capabilities with airplanes we have in game.

[Luftschiff]

"The PE-2 is useless, it could never win a turnfight against a P-51 or K-4 >:("

[CUJO_1970]

1 hour ago, =621=Samikatz said:

The Ju-88C is a 1941-ish spec bomber with front guns bolted on, I don't think comparing it to 1944 fighters is especially reasonable

 

What it feels like to me is an extremely long range equivalent to the Il-2 that trades versatility of arms for payload. The Il-2 can carry a wider variety of things, but the Ju-88 could potentially destroy more things in a sortie and is capable of diving a fair bit faster. They feel like decent counter-parts

 

Exactly, putting a solid nose on the front does not suddenly make it a fighter - it's bizarre what we expect from German planes but let's face it - the Luftwaffe often tried to make them do stuff they weren't designed for as well.

 

Now, if/when we get the BMW801/Jumo 213 this airframe did have historically it would be way more useful - Eric Brown got 400 mph out of a captured one and it had radar!

[=621=Samikatz]

1 hour ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

Exactly, putting a solid nose on the front does not suddenly make it a fighter - it's bizarre what we expect from German planes but let's face it - the Luftwaffe often tried to make them do stuff they weren't designed for as well.

 

Now, if/when we get the BMW801/Jumo 213 this airframe did have historically it would be way more useful - Eric Brown got 400 mph out of a captured one and it had radar!

 

How common were these up-engined models compared to the standard C-6 we have in game?

[unlikely_spider]

I was under the impression that I could get home on one engine in this plane? One engine died after damage, so I cut the rpm and feathered it, but was unable to maintain altitude and crashed. I'll have to practice again to see if I did anything wrong, but I'm sure I followed those steps.

 

Edit - I had no bombs and had like 60-70% fuel I think

Edited March 22, 2022 by unlikely_spider