Jump to content
Jason_Williams

Discussion of Bodenplatte, Flying Circus and Tank Crew Announcement...

Recommended Posts

Unexpected turn of events, but good news indeed.

I really like the plane set for Bodenplatte with lots of fighter bombers, its going to be fun flying.

Tanks and WW1 can bring more customers to the store, making us all benefit in the long run.

 

Keep it up guys!  :friends: 

 

 

I wonder which will be the first plane to fly in early access. I love early access. Best part of the game development for me.

 

Me too, early access is like getting christmas presents all year long...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be cool. P-47B wasn't really used, only around 170 were made, the P-47C would be a better choice or an early D model.

Right you are, my mistake. I am mainly interested in the older versions of those planes with the obsolete low visibility canopies TBH.

 

Guys, help me understand about the Flying Circus situation which is NOT super clear to me: owners of Rise of Flight will NOT get any discounts nor freebies, is that right?

Edited by KastaRules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Guys, help me understand about the Flying Circus situation which is NOT super clear to me: owners of Rise of Flight will NOT get any discount nor freebie, is that right?

 

Jason said there might be a discount.

 

I personally would not expect one and would not bother me if there were not . Many sims in previous years I bought and paid full price for, that were a sequel to a previous one with updated graphics, improvements, etc.

They will be expending a lot of time and resources into this new implementation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason said one of the 109's or the Spit. :)

Thanks. I guess it has been mentioned during Sundays livestream. I missed that. Will be nice to fly Spitfire IX in colors of czechoslovaks in RAF. Namely Otto Smik,most successful slovak ace in RAF and commander of 127.squadron in november 44 stationed near Brussels.

https://www.google.sk/amp/s/fcafa.com/2010/08/19/otto-smik/amp/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder which will be the first plane to fly in early access. I love early access. Best part of the game development for me.

My bet:

 

Bf109G-14

Fw190A-8

Bf109K-4

Spitfire

P47

P51

Fw190D-9

Tempest

Lightning

Me262

 

I hope that iam wrong and that all luft. b eautiful fighters come first and the ugly flying bricks later :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on. They are no bricks :)

P-47 is a jug.

P-38 is a pitchfork devil.

P-51 is some kind of wild horse descending from conquistadores import :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My bet:

 

Bf109G-14

Fw190A-8

Bf109K-4

Spitfire

P47

P51

Fw190D-9

Tempest

Lightning

Me262

 

I hope that iam wrong and that all luft. b eautiful fighters come first and the ugly flying bricks later :)

 

They probably wouldn't make 3 axis aircraft in a row... Like Gambit said, Jason said a 109 or spit is coming first and then whichever wasn't would then come 2nd. Which 109 you can speculate but thats all! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder which will be the first plane to fly in early access. I love early access. Best part of the game development for me.

G-14 vs Mk.IX?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my  Opinion the   "Flying Circus" is a bit of a waste of  productive time.... but yeah its just my opinion

 

... but I will buy it anyways

 

There will be nothing more thrilling than flying a WW1 bird with VR. The still reduced resolution of the goggles is less of a problem, as the distances in fights are much lower.

And in case you don´t use VR: There was no WW2 pilot, who did not get training on a biplane to proficiency before he first sat in a WW2 fighter. It is definitly no waste of productive time. Wait and see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit I was looking forward to flying a Zero and a Wildcat, however this news has made me much happier!

 

I only got into BOX after building my first PC for the sole intention to play ROF.  My previous computer was a crappy laptop and I dreamed of a day I could play ROF on full settings and for there to be no slow-down or stutters.

 

When that day finally came I was disappointed that the multiplayer aspect had pretty much disappeared, although playing what I could it was glorious!  I then looked for other games to test my machine that I knew I would be able to run now and came across BOX.  Having been a fan of the original IL-2 I liked the look of this and the community around it, being made up of a lot of the ROF crowd.  I jumped in with 2 feet and have had such a good time so far, and am so looking forward to the rest of BOK - especially the P-39.

 

With this announcement though - the idea of flying the P-47, P-51 and the Tempest I know it's the right decision in terms of BOX, although I may never fly with the LW again...... However the icing on the cake is the Flying Circus announcement.  To be able to fly those crates on full servers with the new FM's and the new work that the team have done on the engine is a dream come true. 

 

Never been fussed on tanks, but will buy it anyway to support the team

 

Happy, happy days indeed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only got into BOX after building my first PC for the sole intention to play ROF.  My previous computer was a crappy laptop and I dreamed of a day I could play ROF on full settings and for there to be no slow-down or stutters.

 

Same reason here! With my first pc I couldn't even load in the HP 0400 and if it did I would only get 2-3 FPS haha.. Oh man how times have changed  :cool:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it would be good to have the map of Bodenplatte extended to East Anglia (around the line Colchester-Kings Lynn) so we can have bases for Mitchels and escorting spitfires for Ramrod operations into Holland and Belgium occupied territory. That could extend time-frame of the map well into 1943. Maybe even to 1942 with Spitfire Vbs and Bostons we allready have from BoK. It would ofcourse need a seasonal maps. And Mosquito  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've interviewed enough WWII Mustang pilots to take issue with a few of those comments.

While I fully acknowledge and understand survivor bias, and I'm far from one of those "P-51 was the best plane of the war!" Americans

I'm also not one of those who feels the need to over-compensate the other direction by reducing its success to misconception, nationalism, and late war circumstances. (though they certainly play a part)

In any case I don't think you're connecting the dots quite right there.

 

All things being equal (an admittedly rarer and rarer situation as the war progressed) It's the 190's that represented the greater threat - not the late 109's. At least that's what the actual pilots tell me.

Agreed very much. By the way, I wouldn't believe you would be a "P-51 RAH!" Americans - unfortunately they are out there, and they are numerous. The Mustang had many strategical strengths - that made it the better plane to the mission planners. The P-51-D however had a weaker engine than the A-8 at similar weight. Its only real tactical advantage in combat was that it would hold speed much longer after a dive and could maneuver at these high speeds. That's why they thought the FW were more dangerous, they could keep up for a while. I've seen many of these interviews, they're all terrifingly interesting. The ability to pick your fights is probably one of the most powerful of them all.

 

P.S.: A-8 had about 350PS more at similar weight, D-9 had over 400PS more than the P-51D. Let's not turn this into a aircraft stat discussion, but I ask you, how do you explain that P-51D allegedly outclimbing them? May The P-51D have had more energy to being with, or were the FW carrying bombs, or did they have full fuel, or was it at altitudes above 3km?

 

 

I have no doubts that =LG=Hirochima can get any of us in a dogfight btw, he'd kill me even if he was in a MiG-3 and I was in a D-9. But that's no real way to compare aircraft :biggrin:

Edited by 2./JG51_Fenris_Wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason said there might be a discount.

 

I personally would not expect one and would not bother me if there were not.

Understood, thank you! I agree with your thought although I would still appreciate some sort of loyalty bonus.

Edited by KastaRules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not worry too much about the fighters, the Tempest is more like a fighter bomber flying rock, all it can do is to march fast with that amazingly powerful engine, and do slashing attacks in an already high speed environment. The iconic P51D under 3000m is out-turned and outrun by both A8 and D9, and dominates over 3000m at diving away from K-4 and G-14. Its main strategical strengths and why it was better than the German planes, were range, numbers, operational versatility, quality of pilot schools, and lowest drag. Except for the latter to keep a high dive speed up forever (lets the pilot pick his fights and live), the strengths hardly translate into IL-2s environment.

Now that Spitfire, that one becomes a dangerous fighter, as that engine lets it keep up the fight and gain a huge edge in energy the longer it lasts.

 

Interesting times ahead indeed ;)

Oh I'm not worried, it's not going to be a painful disparity.  Rather, I simply expect a pleasant change of pace from the current state of affairs, where German fighters have clear advantages at mid-high and even low altitudes, but nothing the Russians can't work around with good teamwork.

 

I don't know how they're going to model the aircraft in BoX, but the A-8 should not be able to outrun or out-turn the P-51 on the deck.  P-51 IIRC manages about 580kph flat-out at sea level, the A-8 tops out around 560.  The disparity grows quickly as you gain altitude.  The A-8, in most sims I've played, can't even out-turn a P-47 in a sustained turn (though it is faster on the deck).

 

D-9 will go about 600kph at sea level, Tempest 610-615.  Up to about 2km the Tempest is faster, then it slows, only catching up to the D-9 at about 4.5-5km.  Tempest should handily out-turn any 190 in anything except instantaneous turns at high speeds, and it should retain energy better.  D-9 out-rolls the Tempest at all speeds.  P-51 actually does out-roll the Dora above 800kph IIRC, but the D-9 retains a significant climb advantage up until very high altitudes - and trades speed advantages with the P-51 at various levels from 3km-6km, after which the P-51 starts to pull away.

 

Sources: memories of performance charts, memories of IL-2 '46, War Thunder.  For the most part all my memories are consistent, but of course, I don't present myself as any sort of authority here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am backpcking at the other side of the world on a long travel .... Only discovered the news yesterday and just % ÷ #!! * ## .....

 

Fantastic news ! I was smiling all day ! I just hope we will see in the future mosquito and me410 as collectors like the FN and G6. I will preorder as soon as I am home.

 

Justa question : we will have a kusk map with tanks ? .... Opened for aircraft operation also ? ....

 

S !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

 

Sources: memories of performance charts, memories of IL-2 '46, War Thunder.  For the most part all my memories are consistent, but of course, I don't present myself as any sort of authority here.

Very interesting indeed, regarding your main text body. May I just remind you that the FWs were painfully undermodelled in these videogames, especially War Thunder, which doesn't even remotely qualify as a simulator. Videogames are not valid sorces, don't let them fool you by a videogame or its community acting like an echo chamber based on WT experiences, that the A-8 wouldn't outturn a P-51D in reality. Of course the FW would outturn it, every specification card and actual veteran accounts and testers all scream it. You could bet your horses on that the P-51D would fall out of the sky if they fly in virage first, with half the WEP time and 350-400PS less at similar weight than the A-8. 

 

IL-2 Battle of Stalingrad with Jason made a habit out of using actual sources and not what is the case in other videogames. 

 

The behavior and many voices of Americans speaking about this like you did is what I fear threatens actual historical accuracy the most in the genre. That is why I answer in the third post by now about the same topic. Like Gambit mentioned, "P-51D-best-of-awesome" Americans are a real thing. I just could not stand a Focke Wulf 190 A-8 being undermodelled yet again, that would be too painful. Jason and the boys got the A-3 and A-5 right, and I trust them to use actual data for BoBp again. Without stealth buffs it will lead to the proper aircraft performances by itself.

Edited by 2./JG51_Fenris_Wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed very much. By the way, I wouldn't believe you would be a "P-51 RAH!" Americans - unfortunately they are out there, and they are numerous. The Mustang had many strategical strengths - that made it the better plane to the mission planners. The P-51-D however had a weaker engine than the A-8 at similar weight. Its only real tactical advantage in combat was that it would hold speed much longer after a dive and could maneuver at these high speeds. That's why they thought the FW were more dangerous, they could keep up for a while. I've seen many of these interviews, they're all terrifingly interesting. The ability to pick your fights is probably one of the most powerful of them all.

 

P.S.: A-8 had about 350PS more at similar weight, D-9 had over 400PS more than the P-51D. Let's not turn this into a aircraft stat discussion, but I ask you, how do you explain that P-51D allegedly outclimbing them? May The P-51D have had more energy to being with, or were the FW carrying bombs, or did they have full fuel, or was it at altitudes above 3km?

 

 

I have no doubts that =LG=Hirochima can get any of us in a dogfight btw, he'd kill me even if he was in a MiG-3 and I was in a D-9. But that's no real way to compare aircraft :biggrin:

 

 

The explanation is simple and it is that it was real life and not a video game.  A plane  tryign to flee will  burn as much as it can, no matter the damage it may cause to the plane. Its mission is to survive.

 

THe intercepting planes  are there to defend their homeland, not to score kills.  THeir role was to keep the allies  away.  Compromising the durability of  3 Fw190 engines to Try to catch a P51 that was already defeated ( running away  is  defeated on that scenario) would be   playing horribly your cards.

 

More likely than not the Fw190  were just  being smarter than the average online jock of the 21st century that  wants a kill at any cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bittersweet albeit still exciting news. Could open the door for older versions of the P-51, P-47 and Tempest... down the road.

 

Who else would love to see the P-51B, P-47B and the Typhoon in the future??

I'm fine waiting for a different module to see the Tiffy and the razorbacks. Plus B-26, Me-210 plus three to five more as yet unnamed aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course the FW would outturn it

 

Here's the thing: we have two things to work off off.  The NACA wing profiles and the wing loading.  190 wings have a better profile for turning - the P-51's profile sees too much turbulence at a high AoA.  On the other hand, the 190 has 25% higher wing loading.  It bleeds energy and slips in turns like no other single-engine plane, not even the P-47.  The stubby, straight contours were also made for speed - not energy retention.  We can even see this with the P-51 - rectangular wings.

 

Stories from pilots just aren't physics.  Stories from pilots also told us that Tigers would blow up if a P-47 skipped its bullets off the ground into the belly, and we know that isn't physically possible.

 

 

 

IL-2 Battle of Stalingrad with Jason made a habit out of using actual sources and not what is the case in other videogames. 

 

I think you're really underestimating other video games.  The physics model in, say, Aces High may not be great, but they did their research.  As did 1C when they made IL-2.  Luftwaffles love arguing how their planes are under-tuned, but the D-9 was one of the deadliest piston engine planes in either sim.  But expecting it to turn a sustained turn with a P-51 is unrealistic.  Short turns?  Absolutely - like I said, the 190 can handle a high angle of attack (at speed).  The P-51 can't be jerked around like that.

 

FYI, my favorite plane may be the Tempest, but it's only narrowly ahead of the 190.  My first love is and always will be the 190.  In early-mid war scenarios, the 190A is by far my favorite aircraft.

Edited by thebusdriver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed very much. By the way, I wouldn't believe you would be a "P-51 RAH!" Americans - unfortunately they are out there, and they are numerous. The Mustang had many strategical strengths - that made it the better plane to the mission planners. The P-51-D however had a weaker engine than the A-8 at similar weight. Its only real tactical advantage in combat was that it would hold speed much longer after a dive and could maneuver at these high speeds. That's why they thought the FW were more dangerous, they could keep up for a while. I've seen many of these interviews, they're all terrifingly interesting. The ability to pick your fights is probably one of the most powerful of them all.

 

P.S.: A-8 had about 350PS more at similar weight, D-9 had over 400PS more than the P-51D. Let's not turn this into a aircraft stat discussion, but I ask you, how do you explain that P-51D allegedly outclimbing them? May The P-51D have had more energy to being with, or were the FW carrying bombs, or did they have full fuel, or was it at altitudes above 3km?

 

 

I have no doubts that =LG=Hirochima can get any of us in a dogfight btw, he'd kill me even if he was in a MiG-3 and I was in a D-9. But that's no real way to compare aircraft :biggrin:

I'm not sure - old man brought up fuel which might play a part, you I think mentioned the more slippery airframe.

They'd definitely dropped any tanks or bombs as stated in Whisner's mission report.

Alt was 25000'

 

You know I've tried to gently lead certain pilots into giving the German aircraft a bit more credit.

Many/most do suffer from survivor bias to one extent or another - if not just straight up nationalism, although the latter is more rare.

 

Don Bryan noted that certain 109's seemed like completely different aircraft and you'd better watch it or you'd find yourself on the wrong end of things very quickly. By this of course he was referring to a 109 piloted by a guy who actually knew what he was doing. Something we all know was becoming more rare by the time the Mustang even showed up. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know everyone is fed up with PTO stuff, but I cant help myself. It's just part of my nature :

 

Starting in late 1943, Japanese pilots encountered a new enemy: the P-51 Mustang. Despite some early successes, it quickly became evident that the new fighter was a deadly opponent. The threat only became worse with the introduction of the Merlin-engined P-51B/C and P-51D.

 
As Japanese losses due to the Mustang increased, evaluating it became a priority for the Japanese, in the hope that a tactically significant weakness could be discovered to even the odds. It is fairly safe to assume that the Japanese were able to study some wrecks and other Mustang-related material but this was not enough for a thorough evaluation of the type's performance.
 
The importance of fully evaluating the opponent's aircraft can hardly be overestimated. American forces were able to capture an intact Japanese Zero shortly after the battle of Midway. Bringing it back to the US, they thoroughly tested it. The evaluation confirmed what was already known: the Zero was almost impossible to defeat in a slow turning fight. However, it was also discovered that it was a fairly poor opponent at high speeds. As a result, the Americans shifted to high-speed “hit and run” tactics which allowed them to defeat Japanese air superiority.
 
On January 16, 1945, an event occurred that gave the Japanese military a chance to become much more familiar with the Mustang. On that day, 1.Lt. Oliver E. Strawbridge of the 26th Fighter Squadron, 51st Fighter Group, was hit by enemy gunfire and landed at the Japanese-held Suchin airfield in China. Some sources indicate he made a wheels-up landing, while others contend he landed his airplane normally. Pictures of the aircraft in Japanese hands show no obvious sign of damage or repairs. Had Strawbridge made a belly landing, the damage to the propeller and belly intake would have been very complicated for the Japanese to repair. One can therefore assume that the P-51 was captured intact.

In any case his aircraft, a P-51C-11-NT nicknamed "Evalina", was rapidly seized by Japanese troops. Whatever damage the aircraft had taken was repaired rapidly. Hinomarus were painted over the American stars but the rest of the aircraft was left in its original scheme.

“Evalina” was flown back to the Japanese Army Air Inspection Center in Fussa (now Yokota Air Base) by Yasuhiko Kuroe, a 30-victory ace.

In Fussa, the Mustang's performance was evaluated by Kuroe, who recalls:


I was astonished with its performance. Turn characteristics were splendid, almost the same as the Ki-84 in a horizontal turn. The radio transmitter was excellent, the armament and other miscellaneous equipment was very good, particularly when compared with their Japanese equivalents, and moreover it had a radio direction-finder. After fuel consumption tests we estimated it would be able to fly over the Japanese homeland from Iwo Jima. Some time later this came true.”

I don't know how many German pilots had an opportunity to actually test P-51 and compare it to what they flew on daily basis. It's just another quote but then again, some here seem to place huge emphasis on quotes instead of math and aerodynamics. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed very much. By the way, I wouldn't believe you would be a "P-51 RAH!" Americans - unfortunately they are out there, and they are numerous. The Mustang had many strategical strengths - that made it the better plane to the mission planners. The P-51-D however had a weaker engine than the A-8 at similar weight. Its only real tactical advantage in combat was that it would hold speed much longer after a dive and could maneuver at these high speeds. That's why they thought the FW were more dangerous, they could keep up for a while. I've seen many of these interviews, they're all terrifingly interesting. The ability to pick your fights is probably one of the most powerful of them all.

 

P.S.: A-8 had about 350PS more at similar weight, D-9 had over 400PS more than the P-51D. Let's not turn this into a aircraft stat discussion, but I ask you, how do you explain that P-51D allegedly outclimbing them? May The P-51D have had more energy to being with, or were the FW carrying bombs, or did they have full fuel, or was it at altitudes above 3km?

 

 

I have no doubts that =LG=Hirochima can get any of us in a dogfight btw, he'd kill me even if he was in a MiG-3 and I was in a D-9. But that's no real way to compare aircraft :biggrin:

You very much underestimate the P-51D. Depending on available WEP power and fuel (67'hg, 72'hg, 75'hg, 81'hg? Could be selectable like Merlin types for Spit Vb?), the P-51D can be a real monster to deal with. Especially that you have to take into consideration that if both planes are in take off configuration the P-51D has lower wing loading and that only becomes more pronounced when you defuel it to just 30% (which is still about 45 minutes of low level, fairly high power flying).

 

As busdriver said, the P-51D cannot pull very high deflection, but that doesn't mean it cannot pull deflection at all. It is still a very capable airplane and can definitely win a turning fight with Fw190D9 equiped with MW50 and 1.8 ata power while at 61'hg of power itself. It is a fairly big difference in turning performance and only very defueled 190 with lots of skill can keep the fight interesting. I claim that P-51D will be even an issue for Bf109K4 and G6 in turning battles. It will definitely be closer than you think and especially with higher power settings.

 

190D9 has its share of advantages over the Mustang, but those diminish with higher boost and low speeds. P-51D with 75'hg can outrun, outturn and outclimb a 190D9 at most altitudes.

 

PS. If you think that pilots acoounts are so important and say the whole story (they don't), I can tell you that there are many pilot stories from Allied pilots who claim that outturning a 109 and 190 was easy. I can even give you a link to some of them.

 

PS.2: Links and quotes:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/352-bryan-27sept44.jpg

"At no time did I have any trouble either overtaking or out-turning the FW 190s or ME 109s."

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/4-chandler-6nov44.jpg "(...) I turned inside him easily."

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-daniell-26nov44.jpg "It wasn't difficult to get on his tail as I was turning with him."

 

You can find more here:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports.html

Edited by =LD=Solty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pilots who managed to outturn their enemies returned to tell the tale, the ones who didn't ended up in a smoking hole... You will always have a majority of (surviving) pilots saying that their own planes were the best.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is good to see that the development of BoS continues and that an imporved wwI simulator will be published, though I am a little disappointed by the choice of planes or theater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right you are, my mistake. I am mainly interested in the older versions of those planes with the obsolete low visibility canopies TBH.

 

Guys, help me understand about the Flying Circus situation which is NOT super clear to me: owners of Rise of Flight will NOT get any discounts nor freebies, is that right?

 

I jumped back into Il-2 1946 and hooooo weeee...I forgot how ugly the Razorback cockpits were in Il-2. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know everyone is fed up with PTO stuff, but I cant help myself. It's just part of my nature :

I don't know how many German pilots had an opportunity to actually test P-51 and compare it to what they flew on daily basis. It's just another quote but then again, some here seem to place huge emphasis on quotes instead of math and aerodynamics. 

Several P-51's and P-47's in good flyible condition was present in Rechlin center, and many fighter groups sent some of pilots there to fly and test those aircrafts. I have photos of Hptm. Egon Albrecht (II./ZG1 and later III./JG76, KIA aug.1944) sitting in P-47, photo dated around june 1944.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fantastic, but did they produce anything substantial to give us their perspective ? So far I havent seen any Luftwaffe comparative reports on that topic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, lets have a look on what Order of Battle both sides had on 1.jan.1945, during Bodenplatte:

 

Luftwaffe:

post-1464-0-00470000-1511202964_thumb.jpgpost-1464-0-61723500-1511202967_thumb.jpg

 

1446 fighters, with 986 of the serviceble. I hadnt scored how many exactly 109G-14's, G-10's, 190A-8's, A-9's and D-9's. You may score it if You have time. But this list clearly represent the sub-series of each fighter in Luftwaffe inventory on 1.01.45.

 

Allies:

post-1464-0-25585500-1511203122_thumb.jpgpost-1464-0-05541100-1511203124_thumb.jpg

 

RAF

16 squadrons of Typhoon IB

5 squadrons of Tempest V

2 squadrons of Mustangs (both Recce)

4 squadrons of SpitfireMkXVI

6 squadrons of Spitfire MkXIV

20 squadrons of Spitfire MkIX (including two - Recce)

 

USAAF

24 squadrons of P-47

6 squadrons of P-51

1 squadron of F-5 (unarmed reconnaissanse version of P-38)

 

As You may see, no exact numbers given, just general serie/model of aircraft. But if we will follow detailed loss reports, we will find exact factory (built) numbers of some aircrafts, wich may lead into clearing, what exactly sub-serie/model was present.

 

Losses in air:

post-1464-0-50646000-1511203258_thumb.jpg

 

Overall materiel losses:

post-1464-0-25482800-1511203259_thumb.jpgpost-1464-0-41156100-1511203262_thumb.jpg

post-1464-0-84970600-1511203263_thumb.jpgpost-1464-0-94723300-1511203266_thumb.jpg

post-1464-0-23273000-1511203268_thumb.jpg

 

So, I would like to listen some Allied fighters experts out here, may they recognise sub-model useng serial-numbers of Spitfires, P-47's, P-51's e.t.c.

 

PSST: Do I see hordes of Typhoons and the only Lightning squadron, wich is moreover a pure reconnaisance squadron, equipped with unarmed F-5's? ;) I mean, shouldn't be fair to give a Typhoon instead of Lightning to Allies?

Edited by I./ZG1_Panzerbar
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the P51 back in 46 wasn't so much its sustained turn, it was its inability to reverse direction or follow rolls/climbs etc at low speeds. 190s, not to mention 109s had a much easier time with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fantastic, but did they produce anything substantial to give us their perspective ? So far I havent seen any Luftwaffe comparative reports on that topic.

 

They had the „Wanderzirkus Rosarius“, basically a squardon of refurbished allied aircraft for mock fighting with front line pilots to get them to better understand enemy aircraft. Pilots sometimes also had the opportunity to sit at the controls themselves. They liked the Mustang a lot, being very surprised what performance it could draw fom a comperably weak engine. They didn‘t think it to be the greatest of them all, but they, as from combat experience knew that it was very, very bad if you had a pack of them behind your 109 at 7000 meters. But there didn‘t seem to be a single German pilot that didn‘t like it (in a way they generally liked powerful aircraft), same as the later Spitfire marks that also were rather popular mounts. They were less fond of the Jug. Probably they got axiety attacks in such a vast cockpit coming from the 109...

 

Lerche mentiones this several time in his book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that a Fw-190 of JG 5 on the official Battle of Bodenplatte image? If I am not mistaken, all remaining groups of JG 5 were in Norway during Bodenplatte and did not take part in the operation.

 

post-348-0-79562100-1511204977_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, lets have a look on what Order of Battle both sides had on 1.jan.1945, during Bodenplatte:

 

 

 

That is from the "Bodenplatte" book by Manhro/Putz. Is worth the buy? It is in stock on Amazon.

 

I see RCAF 126 Wing with its 5 squadrons of Spits was in the frontlines at B-88. Not that I am surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that a Fw-190 of JG 5 on the official Battle of Bodenplatte image? If I am not mistaken, all remaining groups of JG 5 were in Norway during Bodenplatte and did not take part in the operation.

This Reichverteidigung band should be all yellow. Asch (Y-29), the Air Base of the 352 blue nosed P-51s, was attacked by JG 11.

That is from the "Bodenplatte" book by Manhro/Putz. Is worth the buy?

Yes IMHO. With some corrections by John Manrho on TOCH forum :

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/forumdisplay.php?f=31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That is from the "Bodenplatte" book by Manhro/Putz. Is worth the buy? It is in stock on Amazon.

Absolutely amazing book! 146% worth to buy! 


 

 

Isn't that a Fw-190 of JG 5 on the official Battle of Bodenplatte image? If I am not mistaken, all remaining groups of JG 5 were in Norway during Bodenplatte and did not take part in the operation.

 

III./JG6 was made from remnants of I./JG5, wich was annihilated over France in autumn 1944. And yes, there must be no JG5 fuselage band over that area :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, I would like to listen some Allied fighters experts out here, may they recognise sub-model useng serial-numbers of Spitfires, P-47's, P-51's e.t.c.

 

One of the issues here (taking a single example but of relevance to various a/c) is that the technical difference between a Mk IX and Mk XVI Spitfire.In RAF parlance is that the former had a Merlin produced in the UK and the latter a Merlin produced in North America: both engines were technically identical Merlin 66 series, with same hp at same boost and RPM.

 

Yet people are still exiting toys from pram over the new product featuring a IX rather than a XVI. The RAF / British did not have a useful sub-code of variants which distinguishes one Mk IX from the other, merely a list of engine types, wing types and other small elements which could and were frequently mixed. As a rule of thumb, the XVI was more likely to have the E Wing (2 x 20mm and 2 x .5s), the later [larger] vertical stabliser and possibly a bubble canopy, but the differences are pretty small. A Spitfire IX and XVI in later 1944 probably ran 18 or 25lb boost, but in most air forces squadrons generally ran a mixed bag until withdrawn and re-equipped (or suffered very heavy losses, whichever was earlier).

 

So the Spit IXs and XVIs may have been virtually identical, The Typhoon IBs were the later series with a bubble canopy and Sabre II engines, while the Tempest Vs would have all been Series II with the Sabre IIB, if only because the Series I was produced in very small numbers and had largely self-attrited by this point (early Sabres being very temperamental).

 

So, for 2TAF the IXs and XVIs are almost certainly all late model-, high-power variants, as are the Tififes and Tempests, though individual engine boost and so forth can be debated. Same likely true of 109 variants, possible the Fws as well. Given loss rates in the Luftwaffe summer-Autumn 1944, I expect a lot of the fighters were new models. Not sure about the Yanks.

 

There are documents and records that could narrow down the RAF sub-variants by squadron, but I suspect it would be better to take a base-line or 2 and call it even. If time and energy were available, say:

 

Spit IX C-wing, full span, 18lb boost, high back, traditional tail

Spitfire IX E-wIng, clipped, 25lb boost, bubble canopy, new tail,

 

Sure similar base-line models could be found for all types. May not cover the small number of exotic machines that every force had, but reflects the most common variant or 2 without upsetting any of the fan base or nobbling and famous design.

Edited by EAF19_Marsh
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...