Jump to content

VO101Kurfurst

Members
  • Content Count

    894
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

759 Excellent

About VO101Kurfurst

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2511 profile views
  1. The reality is a bit more complex. APRC rounds were kept in service and production for the smaller guns like 5cm which could not do without it, for the long 75s and 88s it was developed, and a small number were made but in reality it was not used. IIRC for the 8,8 L/71 only about 5000 Pz40 were made, which is about one round for every gun made. Not that the long 8,8 would need it. 😄
  2. Prien and Rodeike on G-5/AS and G-6/AS units, production and deployment.
  3. It does not strike me particularly difficult to have a G-6Late with different mods - plain vanilla 1,42ata G-6 with Erla cabin, equitable with 605AS mod and/or MW mod, Y verfahrung and whatnot Kinda like the IXe of Bodenplatte. I am sure if a Merlin 70 and model changes with different tails and wingtips is technically doable then a new cowling and a different engine is doable on this G-6Late. At least it would then make sense to have ‘late G-6’ in the first place that is not just a Collector G-6 or a G-14 but represent a wider number of late mods and conversions that were used in late batches before it got standardised as G14. /U2 simple means a factory modification for GM-1 is present. But a substantial number was converted by: Erla Antwerp, G6/U2/AS, 95 converted airframe Erla Antwerp, G6/U2/R2/AS, 23 converted airframe Mi-Metall, G6/U2/AS, 98 converted airframe Blohm & Voss, G6/U2/AS, 80 converted airframe Naturally every AS conversion necessitated the change of the cowling. The cowling was changed because the AS engine was simply made fitting a DB 605A with the supercharger of a bigger DB 603, and the bigger supercharger would simply not fit otherwise. Hence why it’s asymmetrical and bigger on the port side.
  4. I am long aware of the research pitfall you have encountered. Umbau vs Neubau. Conversions vs New Production issue. The reason is that converted planes (which is practically all G-5/AS and most of the G-6/AS) does not show up in the stocks & movement list you are looking at az WW2.DK. They seem to list converted planes with their original designation (logical btw) but looking at loss lists, memoirs and photographs reveals the actual types. JG 3 shows up in June probably because they start receiving new production (Neubau) G-6/AS, which were totally new planes, equipped with AS engines from the start. Hence why the picture of Specht’s G-5/AS from II/Jg11photographed provably in early April when he was awarded/promoted etc. Read up sevenless’s post. Furthermore read up Knoke’s diary for April 1944 who was with the same unit, he specifically mentions receiving new planes ‘with methanol and new supercharger’, the latter which he finds ‘fantastic’ when he climbs to 9000m a few days later. Hint, Hint. Then there is Oseau, shot down in May 1944 in his new G-6/AS when Goring accused him with cowardice (he was bed rotten with fever). Yet none of these show up as proper /AS aircraft in the movements list. They list stuff like receiving new ‘G-5’ and G-5/U2’ etc.. Why? Because these units received planes that are conversions from older, existing aircraft which for some reason still reported in their old designation - and early designation wasn’t that consistent to begin with, until they standardized the things as ‘G-14’ a few months later. Conversions are the reason why so many were converted from /U2s, originally a GM1 modification - the MW system used the very same tank and setup, and it was an easy conversion to MW instead of the now redundant GM1 system. However Prien and Rodeike, who seems to have access to the loss lists details the units that received the G-5/AS and G-6/AS, with known evidence of /AS losses, pictures and so on, which is what I used to track these units.
  5. +1 to that. I can get the why not sell the same plane three times part. What I cannot get is why is it so hard to get in an (easily makeable from existing resources) /AS 'engine mod' for the so called 'G-6 late' for a plane that is both relevant to the map and is actually sorely missing from both Bodenplatte and Normandy for the lineup. Brief one hour research reveals that at least four separate Luftwaffe Fighter Wings: III/JG 1, I/JG 3, I/JG 5, and II/JG 11 (plus some of their Stabschwarme) participated in the Battle of Normandy equipped fully or partially with a mix of G-5/AS and G-6/AS. The argument that these planes would not be relevant for Normandy is simply bogus and makes me wonder if it based on simply insufficient research. See also the G-5/AS of Gunther Specht (Gruppenkommandeure of II / JG 11) photographed in early April 1944.
  6. To quote Juri JS from the other thread, which also my understanding: "The Ju-88C6a was the heavy fighter version without radar. In France it was flown by V./KG 40 and later by parts of ZG 1, who flew missions over the Bay of Biscay. ZG 1 also flew missions against the Allied beachheads in June 1944 but suffered heavy losses and was withdrawn after a few days.' So basically by Normandy, it was an obsolate type that still soldiered on in secondary roles, and its role was brief and wasn't very significant. For a heavy fighter/attacker role, the Germans already get the excellent Me 410. In the bomber department, however, the Germans lack planes, as most of what we have are early/mid war variants of the Ju 88 and He 111, but none of the later stuff. Which brings me the question why it isn't some variant Ju 188 instead. Some part of the modelling can be skipped as its basically an upgraded Ju 88 (hint - Ju 188 series started with the E model the plane was just 'rebranded' from Ju 88E to Ju 188E at some point), which would bring something new to the table.
  7. ... and the you ask yourself why the Ju 88C or the MkXIV is relevant then. The fomer was active perhaps in the Bay of Biscay, the latter was present in a few Squadrons which were 99% engaged in patrols in pairs over England prior to the invasion or V1 intercept duties. As for the /AS aircraft, JG 11 had practically identical G-5/AS in April 1944 already, then there is G-14/AS which is pretty much the same as was around since July-August 1944. Fact is the /AS equipped aircraft are one of the most important Luftwaffe fighter types for mid/late 1944 and they are neither present in Bodenplatte, and from the communication so far seems to be neither going to be present in Normandy. Besides - just how hard it is to copy paste a K-4 cowling with minor modifications onto a G-6 and making very slight adjustments to the drag and engine model? Because the two planes are 90% the same. Same propeller. Same supercharger. There was a reason why the /AS aircraft came about in the spring of 1944 and that was precisely to have a quickly available aircraft with similar high altitude performance until the K4/605D development and production starts (which was supposed to be started in the spring of 1944). As it is, it seems to me that somebody forgot to make his homework in this one.. but at least we get an utterly insignificant 190 subtype a Ju 88 variant that is basically a cheap mod of an existing airfract and a niché Spitfire variant which significance has to be looked over a magnifying glass to be even noticed.
  8. Well. Its basically the same power as the K-4/DB. Only its a lighter airframe and with MG 151. Any 109 with the 605ASM or 605D is potent fighter. This below for the G5/6/14/AS with MW.
  9. G-5/6/14/AS is still missing though, especially from Bodenplatte (unless G6 late has an AS mod, which it should have, given it’s basically a rebranded G-14). Otherwise, solid choices, we finally get the Tiffie, Me410, and some XIV fans can finally get it for a mere 80 buck paywall. It’s also a good base for a Tank Crew expansion, and perhaps one day we can see heavy bombers.. B17s, Lancs and Greiffs are all feasible on this map. Ju 88C is the only one making me scratch my head, a Ju 188 would have been nicer and perhaps more fitting than a small Ju 88A mod.
  10. I would be happier with the timers more or less going away. Replaced by keeping the engine within the proper coolant and oil temperatures and you should be more or less fine. Maybe with a very very small chance (like 1% in every minute above the timer) of suffering a random engine failure past the official limits.
  11. Actually you are half right, service approval for +25 was not given for the Merlin 70 until 31st January 1945, and amendments has yet to be made. From which it follows that prior to the approval in 1945, it wasn't +25. It was +21, see the RR operational warning card design from 24 May 1944. At least theoretically, since both No. 1 and No. 165 Squadrons which tested 150 grade for suitability only had Merlin 66 Spits... And as for the 'evidence' for it's performance is a home drawn estimate on a chart in which Mike Williams himselfs 'extrapolates' performance from +18 lbs trial results on HF IX protos tested in 1943... there are not even factory estimates, even less actual tests.
  12. That has been argued many times, and was shown incorrect IMO with nada evidence presented to support theory. And why reiterate the same arguments in the wrong thread.
  13. Its the same fuel port, just different stencils for the crew. Default fuel to use was C-3 for all methanol boosted variants, B4 could be used in an emergency, according to manuals. The reason was that C-3 had high enough ratings to keep going without knocking even if the MW50 system fails, while with B4 if you did not have MW injecting properly you were risking rapid and massive engine failures. Although in around February 1945 the lead content of B4 was raised and it was said that with the revised formulae it now had 'near equal C3 quality'.
  14. IIRC the clearance was +21 lbs for the Merlin 70, but its highly theoretical as it is rather doubtful if it ever used it, even for operational trials. No known records of it. For the entire duration of 1944, there were but two 150 grade Merlin 66 IX LF Squadrons (Nos. 1 and 165) doing operational trials, posted far from the action and generally just gathering experience and live testing if the fuel is feasible for operational use at all. All of those were Merlin 66 and none of the planes had Merlin 70 and there is no known use for increased boosts in the Merlin 70 at all, even for trials, though I suppose RR itself may have tried it on the bench. Add to that that there were just 2 or maybe 3 Squadrons operating with Merlin 70 IXs during the whole war, and all based in Britain. These were special high altitude Squadrons, and had no use for boosts feasible for lower altitudes to start with. No Merlin 70 Spit squadron with the 2nd TAF at all. All of them Merlin engined ones were Merlin 66/266 L.F.s. So the real question regarding the M70 engine mod is not why doesn't have a 150 grade option, but rather - why is the M70 is in the game at all. No 2nd TAF Squadron ever had them, even of those that stayed in Britain were very few in numbers. I suppose they are in because it was an easy way around not having a XIV.
×
×
  • Create New...