He 111 Official Thread

[Pony51 6,572]

Years since the creation of the original He 111 (for Wings of Prey?) it has achieved a much needed update!

1.61 introduces the new version with defensive armament closer to the historic H-6 variant, although there are some questions on this version.

NOTE: One has to PURCHASE the 250kg bombs on the H-6!  You do not get any with the aircraft even though by default it has the rack.

 

 

The game also has the H-3 and H-16.

 

The thread for the historical errors in current model is here, mainly H-16 but others including the updated H-6.  There was post in 1.61 Dev also.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pony51 6,572]

I looked at the H-6 in Dev today, only found 3 items that are game impacting.

The best way to deal with the errors is pool our resources and produce strong proof of the errors, like with the Me 410 posts.

 

Major:

1. the bottom turret is centered 45 to left of where it should be (already reported) ## question if the mount is correct!##    0046561

1B, Bottom forward turret is off center as well, opposite to rear!   0046336

2. Number of gunners is 7, should be 4 max. 0046558  

3. Forward bottom gun should be MG FF (but I think I saw a few images with MG 15 as alternate).  Better to be the 20mm, get some ground targets. NEED LOTS OF DOCUMENTATION.

 

Tail stinger on 111 historically was fixed, but GJ wanted it to be a little more useful.  

A few Pe-2's also have, wonder if they will get some traverse?

Question: should we go strict historical with fixed, OR allow a little traverse to boost the pretty weak defensive guns?

 

Minor:

Number of cosmetic issues and X-Ray funnies, good to fix but not killer.

 

IF YOU POST IMAGE, PLEASE PROVIDE SOURCE INFORMATION!!

 

UPDATE:

Here is list of cosmetic errors:

1. Top gunner (B-stand) is cramped (not how they would sit)

2. X-ray shows B-stand canopy closed

3. Nose gunner (A-stand) is doing acrobatics

4. Tail stinger x-ray shows MG 15, should be MG 17

5. Bombs are visible in windows (racks missing, and windows closed off

6. Wrong name for bomb racks

7. C-stand gunner asleep at job.

8. (more to come)

 

 

Considering how well the Ju88A-1 (almost error free) was made, I am disappointed this one has so many mistakes.  

 

 

==========================

Data sources

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/270901-id0035013-141015-he-111-h-16-incorrect-bombload-configurations/

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/154498-1412712-he-111-h-16-bombloads-armament-performance/

 

 

[Saltzer 2,454]

Just now, Pony51 said:

2. Number of gunners is 7, should be 3, 4 max.

How did they get to 7? First guy manning the MG in the cockpit, second guy at the MG up top, third and fourth manning the beam positions, and the fifth plus maybe a sixth(?) manning the MGs in the gondola. Did they do the age old mistake again of assigning a theoretical gunner to the rear MG, like the Me 410 once having 2 "gunners" for each gun?

 

Also how would you assign 4 let alone 3 gunners? 1st in the cockpit, 2nd up top, 3rd responsible for both beam positions and 4th for both guns in the gondola? That can still work but with 3 it gets iffy. I don't know how many gunners were assigned as standard in real life which we should strife to keep close to, but that can get kinda complicated as in real life a crew could move to the respective gun positions whereas that is not possible/realized currently in War Thunder's engine.

 

Quote

Question: should we go strict historical with fixed, OR allow a little traverse to boost the pretty weak defensive guns?

The gun should be historically accurate and fixed. It should not be treated as a turret with an imaginary gunner; mechanically it is a Schräge Musik emplacement that fires backwards instead of (diagonally) upwards, especially as it was operated by the pilot.

[The_Bowman_TW 583]

The problem with gunners persists with the Do-17 Z-2. They have assigned a gunner for each gun, and therefore it imposes an unneeded handicap on gunner effectiveness. Maybe I'm wrong, but this seems convenient if the devs want to force people into buying golden eagles for experienced gunners. It's not nice though.

[axised 1,456]

25 minutes ago, The_Bowman_TW said:

The problem with gunners persists with the Do-17 Z-2. They have assigned a gunner for each gun, and therefore it imposes an unneeded handicap on gunner effectiveness. Maybe I'm wrong, but this seems convenient if the devs want to force people into buying golden eagles for experienced gunners. It's not nice though.

I feel more like noone cares about certain planes. Look at the 410s, they sit at the same Br like 2 yrs ago. Meanwhile we have a P61 and certain other planes that do Litterally everything better, but sit at a lower BR. There's no rational reason for those issues other than noone cares / other stuff is more important. 

[Hopit 4,416]

7 hours ago, Pony51 said:

Question: Now, the tail stinger (extreme aft) does have a few degrees of traverse.

The few pictures seen look like its fixed, maybe text confirm that?

Question: should we go strict historical with fixed, OR allow a little traverse to boost the pretty weak defensive guns?

 

Devs know&said the tail MG was fixed, but decided to make it move for " so that the player can have at least a small chance of shooting down chasing aircraft when firing this machine gun "

[Pony51 6,572]

8 hours ago, Saltzer said:

How did they get to 7? First guy manning the MG in the cockpit, second guy at the MG up top, third and fourth manning the beam positions, and the fifth plus maybe a sixth(?) manning the MGs in the gondola. Did they do the age old mistake again of assigning a theoretical gunner to the rear MG, like the Me 410 once having 2 "gunners" for each gun?

 

Also how would you assign 4 let alone 3 gunners? 1st in the cockpit, 2nd up top, 3rd responsible for both beam positions and 4th for both guns in the gondola? That can still work but with 3 it gets iffy. I don't know how many gunners were assigned as standard in real life which we should strife to keep close to, but that can get kinda complicated as in real life a crew could move to the respective gun positions whereas that is not possible/realized currently in War Thunder's engine.

 

(bold) YEUP!

 

I was inside a real 111, the bottom gunner could readily jump up and get the beam guns too.

 

6 hours ago, The_Bowman_TW said:

The problem with gunners persists with the Do-17 Z-2. They have assigned a gunner for each gun, and therefore it imposes an unneeded handicap on gunner effectiveness. Maybe I'm wrong, but this seems convenient if the devs want to force people into buying golden eagles for experienced gunners. It's not nice though.

 

That was bug reported in Dev before the 17Z-2 came out.

Still there.

 

1 hour ago, Hopit said:

Devs know&said the tail MG was fixed, but decided to make it move for " so that the player can have at least a small chance of shooting down chasing aircraft when firing this machine gun "

 

Source? (TY)

[Hopit 4,416]

57 minutes ago, Pony51 said:

Source? (TY)

 

3rd paragraph(Is that the correct word?)

[Pony51 6,572]

15 minutes ago, Hopit said:

3rd paragraph(Is that the correct word?)

 

Oh, yes

" In reality, it was absolutely immobile and served as a kind of scarecrow – the aircraft pilot has the ability to fire a volley from this machine gun from time to time which was intended to frighten off any fighters tailing the Heinkel. In War Thunder, this function will be implemented, but the machine gun will have a minimal field of fire on the vertical and horizontal planes, so that the player can have at least a small chance of shooting down chasing aircraft when firing this machine gun. "

 

(silly, I should have read it carefully)

 

Well, although not historical, GJ is trying to make the 111 worth its BR.

[Divergent444 42]

Love the new graphical update for the H-6. Especially love the dorsal gunner's increased arc of fire (with gunner's canopy slid fully back)

 

Now for the issues:

The 'new' H-6's MG in the rear ventral position (rear of gondola) now has a significantly reduced arc of fire downwards. It barely fires downward at all, where in reality it could be swivelled at least 90 degrees downward.

 

The H-6 should realistically have at least one 20mm MG FF mounted either in the front of the gondola, or in the nose (i.e.the bombardier's position).

A second MG in the bombardier's position (7.92mm MG15) was also commonly mounted somewhat above the one in the nose, firing diagonally upward.

 

Not too happy with the decision to make the 'fixed' tail mounted MG17 swivel.

 

Not too happy with the 7 experienced gunners now required. If the 2nd MG in the bombardier's position was mounted, this would probably have been 8! 

[Pony51 6,572]

19 hours ago, Divergent444 said:

Love the new graphical update for the H-6. Especially love the dorsal gunner's increased arc of fire (with gunner's canopy slid fully back)

 

Now for the issues:

The 'new' H-6's MG in the rear ventral position (rear of gondola) now has a significantly reduced arc of fire downwards. It barely fires downward at all, where in reality it could be swivelled at least 90 degrees downward.

 

The H-6 should realistically have at least one 20mm MG FF mounted either in the front of the gondola, or in the nose (i.e.the bombardier's position).

A second MG in the bombardier's position (7.92mm MG15) was also commonly mounted somewhat above the one in the nose, firing diagonally upward.

 

Not too happy with the decision to make the 'fixed' tail mounted MG17 swivel.

 

Not too happy with the 7 experienced gunners now required. If the 2nd MG in the bombardier's position was mounted, this would probably have been 8! 

 

Yes, not a happy birth. 

Working on issues, need supporting data.

[The_Bowman_TW 583]

Will you personally submit a bug report about these issues? We here don't have sources to back our claims with.

[Pony51 6,572]

1 hour ago, The_Bowman_TW said:

Will you personally submit a bug report about these issues? We here don't have sources to back our claims with.

 

"TT33a" is a great contributor for sources!  A search on the next might find some useful information.

I do have some books, but the more the better!

 

I am trying to coordinate all the reports, reduce duplicate work and better reports. 

[CheapSushi 566]

Others posted about it but I made a clearer image of it. The ventral gunner arcs have a big bug. The side gunners also seem to have an issue (they can't fire rearward at all).  Regarding the tail gun. I am fine with it. Keep in mind this is War Thunder. It's already easy as hell to shoot down bombers. If it didn't swivel it would be useless; barely anyone would ever care about it.  If it is a big deal for you guys, then make it fixed for Sim but leave it how it is for AB & RB. I do wish there was a second gun in the cockpit area facing upward since a few had them (maybe could be a field mod). 

 

 

 

Edited August 6, 2016 by CheapSushi

[the_suztown 2,508]

Not sure if it was this way before but is it rightbthat the He111 has almost no elevator deflection above about 175 mph? Ive entered shallow dives and not been able to recover 

[Pony51 6,572]

22 hours ago, CheapSushi said:

Others posted about it but I made a clearer image of it. The ventral gunner arcs have a big bug. The side gunners also seem to have an issue (they can't fire rearward at all).  Regarding the tail gun. I am fine with it. Keep in mind this is War Thunder. It's already easy as hell to shoot down bombers. If it didn't swivel it would be useless; barely anyone would ever care about it.  If it is a big deal for you guys, then make it fixed for Sim but leave it how it is for AB & RB. I do wish there was a second gun in the cockpit area facing upward since a few had them (maybe could be a field mod). 

 

 

 

Thanks for the diagram.

 

The Fig 5 below, where did it come from?

 

15 hours ago, the_suztown said:

Not sure if it was this way before but is it rightbthat the He111 has almost no elevator deflection above about 175 mph? Ive entered shallow dives and not been able to recover 

 

All the 111 do that, or only the new H-6?

[the_suztown 2,508]

7 hours ago, Pony51 said:

 

Thanks for the diagram.

 

The Fig 5 below, where did it come from?

 

 

All the 111 do that, or only the new H-6?

Let me do some tests, but like I said I havent flown the 111's for a long time before the update so I dont know if they have all done this before, this is with mouse aim btw

[Pony51 6,572]

16 hours ago, the_suztown said:

Let me do some tests, but like I said I havent flown the 111's for a long time before the update so I dont know if they have all done this before, this is with mouse aim btw

 

Yes, there is something wrong with the FM.

This weekend had no time to do anything for game.

If you find something please post here.

 

[TT33a 5,406]

Excerpt below is from page 128 of this book: https://www.amazon.com/Heinkel-He-111-Crowood-Aviation/dp/186126576X

 

 

 

 

 

Excerpt below is from page 42 of this book: https://www.amazon.com/Heinkel-He-111-action-Aircraft/dp/0897474465

 

 

 

 

 

Excerpt below is from page 67, 69, & 74 of this book: https://www.amazon.com/Vom-Original-zum-Modell-Heinkel/dp/3763760229

 

 

 

 

 

Excerpt below is from page 237 of this book:https://www.amazon.com/Aerodata-International-No-12-Heinkel/dp/0905469755

 

 

 

 

 

Excerpt below is from page 31, 42, & 43 of this book:https://www.amazon.com/Heinkel-He-111-Crowood-Aviation/dp/186126576X

 

 

 

 

 

Excerpt below is from page 85 of this book:https://www.amazon.com/Heinkel-He-111-Crowood-Aviation/dp/186126576X

 

 

 

 

 

Excerpt below is from page 128 of this book:https://www.amazon.com/Heinkel-He-111-Crowood-Aviation/dp/186126576X

 

 

 

 

Excerpt below is from page 12 of this book:https://www.amazon.com/Profile-Publications-Heinkel-He-111h/dp/B00TOU07UU

 

 

 

 

Excerpt below is from page 6 & 29 of this book:https://www.amazon.com/Luftwaffe-Profile-No-9-Schiffer-Military/dp/0764301659

 

[Pony51 6,572]

Thanks for the info TT33a.

 

Issues will be worked though, I will use what you posted.

 

On the tail-cone gun, GJ knows it was fixed, but they decided to have it movable a tiny bit (3 degrees?).  

I guess one should be happy for it?  Perhaps a compromise and move only on vertical?  Anyway, bigger issues to deal with.

 

but something I have a hard time to find, the Ventral REAR gun mount.  The 111 changed the design sometime from the bulged one to what the model has now. 

I think this happened with the H-16 and later, but having a super hard time to find photos of that position.  Can you look?

Thanks.

[TT33a 5,406]

Excerpt below is from page 51 of this book:https://www.amazon.com/Heinkel-111-Vol-Monographs-3003/dp/8389088266

 

 

 

 

 

Excerpt below is from page 90 of this book:https://www.amazon.com/Heinkel-He-111-v-Monographs/dp/8389088436

 

 

 

 

 

 

Excerpt below is from page 78, 87, & 88 of this book:https://www.amazon.com/Heinkel-He-111-Aero-Detail/dp/B001PRIN8I
 

 

 

 

 

 

Excerpt below is from page 8 of this book:https://www.amazon.com/Heinkel-He-111-Combat-Aircraft-Archive/dp/B001DSIZXM

 

 

Edited August 8, 2016 by TT33a

[CheapSushi 566]

I agree with Gaijin on allowing it to move. As I mention, maybe for Sim, it should be fixed. But in all other game modes, if fixed, it would be completely useless. Like Gaijin did, we have to consider the gameplay aspects and the truth of the in-game dynamics and fighting styles. 

BTW, here is the source of the He-111 firing arc images: http://legendsintheirowntime.com/LiTOT/Content/1942/German_Av_4211_firepower.html

 

It says the Primary source is: 

This article was originally published in the November, 1942, issue of Aviation magazine, vol 41, no 11, pp 200-201.

[CheapSushi 566]

Edit:

 

I found the Handbooks for the He-111s:

 

 (He-11, H-14, H-16) : https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=!AFftyaNveYrHJsE&cid=0C55F4D92D028C46&id=C55F4D92D028C46!3489&parId=C55F4D92D028C46!3387&o=OneUp

 

(He-20): https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=!AAKMDFmGwQlCghQ&cid=0C55F4D92D028C46&id=C55F4D92D028C46!3490&parId=C55F4D92D028C46!3387&o=OneUp

 

Source: https://luftwaffelovers.blogspot.com/2016_01_01_archive.html

[TT33a 5,406]

1 hour ago, Pony51 said:

GJ knows it was fixed, but they decided to have it movable a tiny bit (3 degrees)

 

Do you know why they chose to make it movable instead of implementing the 2 x MG 17 tail instead?

 

[TT33a 5,406]

1 hour ago, Pony51 said:

Ventral REAR gun mount.  The 111 changed the design sometime from the bulged one to what the model has now. 

I think this happened with the H-16 and later, but having a super hard time to find photos of that position.  Can you look?

Edited August 8, 2016 by TT33a