Spitfire IX discussion

[HBPencil]

Gentlemen, please, the topic of this thread is in the title. Pretty much anything to do with the Spitfire MkV (except in how it will affect the modelling of the IX in-game), MkXIV and whatever you think about each other is irrelevant to the discussion of the MkIX around the time of Bodenplatte and how it will relate to BoBP. Please stay on topic or go start a new thread if there's something else you'd rather argue about rather than derailing my thread.

 

Cheers,

 

HB

Seriously, some of you guys really seem to be unable to take a hint so I feel the need to repeat myself: Stay on topic. Please.

 

To those of you who are, I thank you.

 

Thank you for this thread.  If we consider the fuel issue in the wider context, I suggest that 130/150 Octane use by the Allies is not just a Spitfire IX issue.  Perhaps there should be a separate thread covering 130/150 Octane fuels across the board. 

You can thank me by not posting about things irrelevant to this thread topic, and the same goes for Kurfurst. I'd recommend that you follow your suggestion (I doubt Kurfurst will do it) and create a thread about the general use of 150oct in WW2 so the two of you can continue your 'discussion' there, that way this thread doesn't continue to degrade into a blood-sport.

 

 

So, in order walk the talk and try keep this on topic, how do you think you guys will play the Spit IX both on- and off-line? I'm an off-liner myself so, depending on how the career mode works out and what static campaigns the community produces, I can see the IX being something of a jack of all trades, dropping bombs and being a viable dog-fighter at all altitudes. Admittedly it won't be as good at the former as most other aircraft in BoBP but it'll be usable. If the Tempest doesn't get external ordnance then the IX will be the only flyable RAF mud-mover... although I guess we could use the P-51D skinned as the Mustang IV.

And yet for some reason I can't put my finger on, the idea of flying the IX doesn't excite me in the same way that some of the other aircraft (e.g Tempest and P-47) do despite it being such an icon in its own right.

I was thinking some more about the GGS and wondering how it'd play in-game. The idea of looking away from the screen and down at my keyboard to find the keys to adjust the sight while in a fight doesn't seem appealing so I'd rather eyeball the range and lead, but that's just my take. It's relevant here because if the devs did want to do GGS tech then it'd make sense to do it for the IX to save time later on with other aircraft.

 

HB

[ShamrockOneFive]

All good thoughts HB!

 

I suspect that the Tempest will at least get bombs but it does look like they may give it rockets too. That said the Spitfire IX did carry a lot of bombs for the 2nd TAF and I can see the 500lb and 500lb + 2x 250lb loadouts being available as a modification. No idea if they will go with the exceedingly rare twin RP-3 rocket loadout that at least one squadron used (later on though) with their XVI's. I can't see that many online players using it as a mud-mover but I could be wrong. For objective minded people the Spitfire isn't the ideal mud mover but in a pinch it could do and then it could fight its way out too.

 

On the Mark II GGS... I hope we see that as an option. I'd use it for sure although the regular sight would be nice sometimes too. As I understand it the tendency is to set the target wingspan and range well in advance. If you come across a 190 then you set it to 190 and then you don't mess with it much. The distance thing perhaps even less. Set it to convergence or at your ideal firing distance and then you leave it there.

[MrNoice]

its a bit offtopic since its not really sbout the Spitfire but if we get 150octane fuel for it then the bf109k4 should get 100 octane C3 Fuel...

[ZachariasX]

Regarding planeset for BoBP, they need to include aircraft that people want to buy. It is probably not a bad thing if they spate some attractive types for later series. And if we are nice and buy all the stuff, we might get the rest of the planes as well, in maybe something like „Battle if the end“.

 

As for boost levels, I don‘t think it matters so much if they are included. If it is little extra work, why not? I mean if there are people that really need that to have their fix, I‘d be happy to see them catered. Even if it was just a boost level that only Jeffrey Quill used for taking a dump. But it should be up to the mission designer/server to allow certain configurations.

Edited December 5, 2017 by ZachariasX

[EAF19_Marsh]

In fact the need did arise. The solution was to deploy Mk XIV and Tempest Squadrons to the Continent. See Clostermann's appraisal of the situation.

 

Clostemann is an extremely poor source of operational considerations. He flew IXs when XIVs had long been planned and were to service as part of 2TAF, same with Tempest Vs. All were to be moved to continental operations as soon as the V1 threat had passed. And thus they were

 

As for the XIV, I do not share your sentiment. It would be a potent aircraft, but one that is 1000 lbs heavier than the Mk XIV, and not particularly well of at lower altitudes. Its comes into its element at and above 8000m, so I doubt it would give that much trouble.

 

It was a potent aircraft at low and high altitude; 390mph at 5,000ft and 445mph at 29,000ft. Claiming otherwise just shows your total lack of understanding, I am also puzzled by how it can be 1,000lbs heavier than itself - I presume you mean the Griffon being heavier than the Merlin, something made up by the extra power and the fact that the wing size meant that wing-loading did not increase nearly as much as for the K-4 vs earlier versions. The 190 was far heavier for a similar power, as was the P-51. Were they not 'potent'?

 

Nice try. Maybe you can switch back now to the IX, it being the subject of the discussion?

 

I suspect that the Tempest will at least get bombs but it does look like they may give it rockets too.

 

They were cleared for both, of course. 80 Squadron used bombs on a few rare occasions in '45 but no-one used RPs. Given the absence of a Typhoon, not having bombs would be a bit annoying. I can understand the rockets not being a priority for the first release of the aircraft. The IX is not an optimal A2G aircraft, but it is perfectly capable of performing in this role. At least bombs do not effect performance after dropping and the majority if the types used by December were LF, so the engine variant in question was intended to operate below 15,000ft.

[Talisman]

No. 165 Squadron, based in the UK/Air Defense Great Britain briefly engaged in operational trials with 150 grade fuel, reverted back to 130 grade after mid-September.

 

Decision to revert ADGB was made two days after this sortie.

 

 

 

 

 

HEADQUARTERS:           

AIR DEFENCE GREAT BRITAIN.                   

ROYAL AIR FORCE                           

BENTLEY PRIORY                                   

STANMORE                                           

MIDDLESEX   18th September 1944.

 

 

Use of 150 Grade Fuel

Sir,

        I have the honor to refer to the above subject, and state that during the last 6 months a considerable amount of experience has been gained in A.D.G.B. with the use of 150 Grade Fuel in operational aircraft. The use of this fuel allowed higher boost pressures, which gave substantial increases in aircraft performance, and these increases were of great value when Squadrons of A.D.G.B. were employed against the flying bomb. Attached at Appendix “A” is a summary of the experience gained.

2.        Because the flying bomb menace no longer exists, and because under existing operational commitments, aircraft of A.D.G.B. will have to refuel at landing grounds in Belgium or Holland, it has been decided to revert to the use of 130 Grade Fuel and to adjust engines to their previous maximum boost pressure. To continue to use 150 Grade Fuel in operational Squadrons is undesirable for the following reasons:-

(i) The free interchange of Squadrons with T.A.F would be complicated in that aircraft would have to be modified for the lower boost pressure on transfer. (ii) To use 150 Grade Fuel when operating from U.K

and to use 130 Grade Fuel when refueling on the Continent

, would call for repeated adjustments of the maximum boost pressure obtainable. (iii) The increased performance obtainable by the use of 150 Grade Fuel is not an essential operational requirement for the role, which A.D.G.B. Squadrons will be called to undertake in the near future. (iv) T

he supply of 150 Grade Fuel is such

that stocks can only be laid down a certain airfields. This imposes a degree of inflexibility, which is undesirable. (v) The use of high boost pressures in Mosquito aircraft calls for the fitting of open exhausts as the night flying exhausts will not withstand the temperatures associated with the higher boost pressures. Therefore, to continue to use the higher boost pressures in Mosquito aircraft makes the aircraft unsuitable for normal Night Fighter operation.

The Air Officer Commanding-in – Chief, 

Headquarters 

Allied Expeditionary Air Force.

 

Kurfurst,

 

Did you not read this (I get the feeling that you are not carefully reading what is being posted):

 

On 18 September 1944 A.D.G.B. very positively summarized the experience gained to date using 100/150 grade fuel. However, due primarily to logistical difficulties, such as the interchange of squadrons between A.D.G.B. and 2nd T.A.F., it was decided that UK based fighter squadrons should revert to the use of 130 grade fuel. ⁶⁴   Its uncertain as to the degree to which this decision was carried out as of November 1944 Fighter Command was still using 2,000 tons of 150 grade fuel per month. ⁶⁵   With the adoption of 150 grade fuel by the Second Tactical Air Force, any logistical difficulties to Air Defense of Great Britain (A.D.G.B.) use of 150 grade fuel were removed. By early 1945, United Kingdom based Mustangs of A.D.G.B. were operating at +25 lbs/sq.in/80" hg. with 150 grade fuel on operations over the continent and Germany. ^{66   67   68   69}   Eventually all Rolls-Royce Merlin and Griffon engines were cleared to operate on 150 grade fuel, as well as Centaurus, Hercules, Sabre II and Pratt & Whitney Double Wasp engines. ⁷⁰  

 

Here is the link, yet again: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

[EAF19_Marsh]

The increased performance obtainable by the use of 150 Grade Fuel is not an essential operational requirement for the role

 

 

Note that September 1944 this was part of the conclusion. As events unfolded over the Autumn this calculation also changed, which no doubt drove to the decision in November to standardize on the 150 Octane allowing higher performance in the face of new Luftwaffe piston-engined fighters, but above all the growing use of jet aircraft which certainly required the kind of performance previously mandated by anti-diver operations.

[Talisman]

Seriously, some of you guys really seem to be unable to take a hint so I feel the need to repeat myself: Stay on topic. Please.

 

To those of you who are, I thank you.

 

You can thank me by not posting about things irrelevant to this thread topic, and the same goes for Kurfurst. I'd recommend that you follow your suggestion (I doubt Kurfurst will do it) and create a thread about the general use of 150oct in WW2 so the two of you can continue your 'discussion' there, that way this thread doesn't continue to degrade into a blood-sport.

 

So, in order walk the talk and try keep this on topic, how do you think you guys will play the Spit IX both on- and off-line? I'm an off-liner myself so, depending on how the career mode works out and what static campaigns the community produces, I can see the IX being something of a jack of all trades, dropping bombs and being a viable dog-fighter at all altitudes. Admittedly it won't be as good at the former as most other aircraft in BoBP but it'll be usable. If the Tempest doesn't get external ordnance then the IX will be the only flyable RAF mud-mover... although I guess we could use the P-51D skinned as the Mustang IV.

And yet for some reason I can't put my finger on, the idea of flying the IX doesn't excite me in the same way that some of the other aircraft (e.g Tempest and P-47) do despite it being such an icon in its own right.

I was thinking some more about the GGS and wondering how it'd play in-game. The idea of looking away from the screen and down at my keyboard to find the keys to adjust the sight while in a fight doesn't seem appealing so I'd rather eyeball the range and lead, but that's just my take. It's relevant here because if the devs did want to do GGS tech then it'd make sense to do it for the IX to save time later on with other aircraft.

 

HB

 

Hi HB,

 

In your original post for this topic you said, amongst other things:

 

 

- Merlin 66 (obviously) but not so sure about getting 150 octane fuel for +25lb boost. The link below shows the 2nd TAF Spitfires converting to 150oct in January '45 (scroll about 2/3 down the page). Even if we don't get it the Spit will do just fine on +18lb and could, perhaps, mean the work for the engine performance of the P-51D gets done at the same time as it was powered by the Packard version of the Merlin 66 and the 9th AF didn't use 150oct.

 

http://www.wwiiaircr...grade-fuel.html

 

 

So, from this I think it is fair to say that I have posted on topic, whilst taking in the wider context.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

[Herne]

 

So, in order walk the talk and try keep this on topic, how do you think you guys will play the Spit IX both on- and off-line? I'm an off-liner myself so, depending on how the career mode works out and what static campaigns the community produces, I can see the IX being something of a jack of all trades, dropping bombs and being a viable dog-fighter at all altitudes. Admittedly it won't be as good at the former as most other aircraft in BoBP but it'll be usable. If the Tempest doesn't get external ordnance then the IX will be the only flyable RAF mud-mover... although I guess we could use the P-51D skinned as the Mustang IV.

And yet for some reason I can't put my finger on, the idea of flying the IX doesn't excite me in the same way that some of the other aircraft (e.g Tempest and P-47) do despite it being such an icon in its own right.

I was thinking some more about the GGS and wondering how it'd play in-game. The idea of looking away from the screen and down at my keyboard to find the keys to adjust the sight while in a fight doesn't seem appealing so I'd rather eyeball the range and lead, but that's just my take. It's relevant here because if the devs did want to do GGS tech then it'd make sense to do it for the IX to save time later on with other aircraft.

 

HB

 

It would be pretty fragile in a ground pounder role I would imagine ? If ground pounding is your game, P47 has to be your plane

[CIA_Yankee_]

Note that September 1944 this was part of the conclusion. As events unfolded over the Autumn this calculation also changed, which no doubt drove to the decision in November to standardize on the 150 Octane allowing higher performance in the face of new Luftwaffe piston-engined fighters, but above all the growing use of jet aircraft which certainly required the kind of performance previously mandated by anti-diver operations.

 

Aye. Really, all the credible evidence points to +25 lbs Spit IX being appropriate for the theatre. And beyond any doubt, the hardware at least was capable of handling it AND had been in service since 1944. There's no reason this should not be available as a mod (in the same way that the La-5 gets to have the F engine as a mod, for example).

[EAF19_Marsh]

There's no reason this should not be available as a mod

 

 

As a mod, like the current Mk V. It would be great if the mod principle could offer different boosts as well as different wings (full span and clipped, E and C). That would make 6 versions out of one aircraft.

[HBPencil]

Hi HB,

 

In your original post for this topic you said, amongst other things:

 

 

- Merlin 66 (obviously) but not so sure about getting 150 octane fuel for +25lb boost. The link below shows the 2nd TAF Spitfires converting to 150oct in January '45 (scroll about 2/3 down the page). Even if we don't get it the Spit will do just fine on +18lb and could, perhaps, mean the work for the engine performance of the P-51D gets done at the same time as it was powered by the Packard version of the Merlin 66 and the 9th AF didn't use 150oct.

 

http://www.wwiiaircr...grade-fuel.html

 

 

So, from this I think it is fair to say that I have posted on topic, whilst taking in the wider context.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

Hi Talisman,

First of all I should say that I re-read my previous post and can see that it could come across as angry/aggressive, so if it did I apologize and will blame it on having less than an hours sleep the night before!

In regards to the relevance to this thread of the use of 150oct fuel, it depends on the arguments used. Indeed I did raise the subject and any reasonable discussion on its use on the MkIX in 2 TAF in the winter of 44-45 is certainly relevant, but some of arguments seem to me to be too far outside of the scope of this thread (e.g the combat report of a UK based Mustang in late March '45). Please don't think I'm focusing just on you, what I just said can be fairly directed at others and I'm saying it to you because you've taken the time to engage with me, thanks. Truth be told I'm usually cool with the way threads evolve and head down different paths but on this occasion the 150oct subject got messy (we both know why ) I got frustrated that the thread might turn fubar.

FWIW I feel that since 2 TAF converted to 150oct within a not unreasonable time of the baseline date of Bodenplatte, it'd be reasonable for the fuel to be a mod which mission/campaign builders can use at their discretion.

 

Cheers,

 

HB

 

It would be pretty fragile in a ground pounder role I would imagine ? If ground pounding is your game, P47 has to be your plane

Fragile? Personally I don't think so, sure it's no flying tank but I wouldn't expect it be made of glass either. If the Tempest doesn't get external ordnance then it'll be the only flyable bomb hauler the RAF gets and it'll be ok, but not great, at it. I to am sure the Jug will be the mud mover of choice although in ol' 1946 I preferred the P-38, strap on a pair of 1000lbers and 'christmas tree' HVAR mounts and then tear s&*t up

 

All good thoughts HB!

 

I suspect that the Tempest will at least get bombs but it does look like they may give it rockets too. That said the Spitfire IX did carry a lot of bombs for the 2nd TAF and I can see the 500lb and 500lb + 2x 250lb loadouts being available as a modification. No idea if they will go with the exceedingly rare twin RP-3 rocket loadout that at least one squadron used (later on though) with their XVI's. I can't see that many online players using it as a mud-mover but I could be wrong. For objective minded people the Spitfire isn't the ideal mud mover but in a pinch it could do and then it could fight its way out too.

 

On the Mark II GGS... I hope we see that as an option. I'd use it for sure although the regular sight would be nice sometimes too. As I understand it the tendency is to set the target wingspan and range well in advance. If you come across a 190 then you set it to 190 and then you don't mess with it much. The distance thing perhaps even less. Set it to convergence or at your ideal firing distance and then you leave it there.

Thanks! I doubt they'll give us the RP option, too rare and late in the war (I honestly feel we'd be more likely to get the beer kegs ) and pretty much useless (almost a gimmick), but then again if the Tempest gets them the devs might extend it to the IX.

Edited December 6, 2017 by HBPencil

[Talisman]

Hi Talisman,

First of all I should say that I re-read my previous post and can see that it could come across as angry/aggressive, so if it did I apologize and will blame it on having less than an hours sleep the night before!

In regards to the relevance to this thread of the use of 150oct fuel, it depends on the arguments used. Indeed I did raise the subject and any reasonable discussion on its use on the MkIX in 2 TAF in the winter of 44-45 is certainly relevant, but some of arguments seem to me to be too far outside of the scope of this thread (e.g the combat report of a UK based Mustang in late March '45). Please don't think I'm focusing just on you, what I just said can be fairly directed at others and I'm saying it to you because you've taken the time to engage with me, thanks. Truth be told I'm usually cool with the way threads evolve and head down different paths but on this occasion the 150oct subject got messy (we both know why ) I got frustrated that the thread might turn fubar.

FWIW I feel that since 2 TAF converted to 150oct within a not unreasonable time of the baseline date of Bodenplatte, it'd be reasonable for the fuel to be a mod which mission/campaign builders can use at their discretion.

 

Cheers,

 

HB

 

Fragile? Personally I don't think so, sure it's no flying tank but I wouldn't expect it be made of glass either. If the Tempest doesn't get external ordnance then it'll be the only flyable bomb hauler the RAF gets and it'll be ok, but not great, at it. I to am sure the Jug will be the mud mover of choice although in ol' 1946 I preferred the P-38, strap on a pair of 1000lbers and 'christmas tree' HVAR mounts and then tear s&*t up

 

Thanks! I doubt they'll give us the RP option, too rare and late in the war (I honestly feel we'd be more likely to get the beer kegs ) and pretty much useless (almost a gimmick), but then again if the Tempest gets them the devs might extend it to the IX.

 

No probs HB   You sound like a top bloke.  I believe you said that you fly single player, but I reckon, if you haven't tried it yet, you might well enjoy joining a squad and giving MP a go one day.  Most squads are more than happy to accept guests flying with them to see how things go, although sometimes time zones can be difficult to match up.  I am looking forward to the Spitfire IX, but for me the big draw is the Tempest V, which was the historical ride in 1945 for my MP virtual squad )  So I am so pleased that the devs have decided to model it and it has put the final seal on my long term commitment to BoX (as well as carrier operations coming later on).

With Allied air superiority secured, the Spit IX was used to supplement ground attack more and more in 1945 and yes even the 2nd TAF high alt air superiority fighter, the Spit XIV, was pressed into service for ground attack.  However, the Hawker Tempest V will offer us something different and is the most capable Hawker Aircraft Company aircraft to see combat in WWII.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

[Bullets]

So what can we expect features wise with the (Spitfire IX "e" ) ? E wing , Mkii gyro sight ect?? is a bubble canopy a possibility ? Cheers 

[ShamrockOneFive]

So what can we expect features wise with the (Spitfire IX "e" ) ? E wing , Mkii gyro sight ect?? is a bubble canopy a possibility ? Cheers 

 

Well it seems that we'll only see the Spitfire IXe configuration. Hopefully we'll have clipped wings as a modification. There's a good argument to be made for the Mark II GGS gunsight as a modification as it appears they were fitted to Spitfire IX's perhaps as early as April 1944 and then slowly rolled out to the fleet from there.

 

I don't think a bubble canopy is likely. That came later on (March?).

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

April 1944

485 Squadron (New Zealand) was trained in using gyro sight already in March 1944. At least 12 squadrons were already equipped with MK II GGS by May which equals to about 240 Spitfire IXs. I'd say gyro sight and bubble canopy for Bodenplatte should be a standard. 

[Trooper117]

If I remember right, the MkVIII was the first Spitfire to use a bubble canopy and cut down fuselage... so we should not see the revised canopy in Bodenplatte... someone please correct me if I'm wrong

Edited February 10, 2018 by Trooper117

[Panthera]

In fact the need did arise. The solution was to deploy Mk XIV and Tempest Squadrons to the Continent. See Clostermann's appraisal of the situation.

 

As for the XIV, I do not share your sentiment. It would be a potent aircraft, but one that is 1000 lbs heavier than the Mk XIV, and not particularly well of at lower altitudes. Its comes into its element at and above 8000m, so I doubt it would give that much trouble.

 

Clostermann_109K-Spit9_zpsbd84f89e.png

 

 

Clostermann was refering to the Mk.IX's being helpless, and they were because they were hopelessly slow in comparison with the German aircraft. (Hence why I find it more reasonable to add the Mk.XIV for Bodenplatte)

 

However the Mk.XIV was/is a different story, it was fast down low as well as up high, reaching 579 km/h @ sea level & 724 km/h @ 7.3 km with +18 lbs/sq.in. boost, not to mention a 4,700 ft/min climb rate. Also despite being heavier than the Mk.IX the Mk.XIV still boasted horizontal maneuverability far in excess of other allied aircraft such as the P-51 or Tempest, and it would also outturn any German opposition with only the 109 K-4 & barely existing Ta-152H coming close in that regard. 

 

Thus I really cannot follow your thinking if you honestly would consider the Mk.XIV a minor issue as personally I'd consider it BY FAR the biggest aerial threat when flying German.

Edited February 10, 2018 by Panthera

[Bullets]

Excited to have the 50 cal over the .303 in the wings, might actually be able to shoot something down after I have ran out of the hispanos   

[Royal_Flight]

Excited to have the 50 cal over the .303 in the wings, might actually be able to shoot something down after I have ran out of the hispanos   

Absolutely, I'm looking forward to it. And with the ability to carry a fair weight of bombs as well, it could make for a surprisingly useful sneak raider with speed and rate-of-climb to appear, hit a target and extend away... or mix it up if intercepted.

 

I'm not too fussed if we get a bubble canopy or not as I think the razorback Spits look much cooler, but I'd be hopeful for clipped wings.

[HBPencil]

Something I wasn't aware of when I posted the OP was that the Spits that could carry bombs (which includes the IX of course) could also carry the 120lb smoke bomb, one on each hard point although I don't recall of ever hearing of them being operationally. Could be interesting to play the role of target marker.

 

485 Squadron (New Zealand) was trained in using gyro sight already in March 1944. At least 12 squadrons were already equipped with MK II GGS by May which equals to about 240 Spitfire IXs. I'd say gyro sight and bubble canopy for Bodenplatte should be a standard. 

That's good to know, thanks Hiromachi.

 

If I remember right, the MkVIII was the first Spitfire to use a bubble canopy and cut down fuselage... so we should not see the revised canopy in Bodenplatte... someone please correct me if I'm wrong

A MkVIII was used as the first test bed for the bubble top, however it wasn't ever a feature of MkVIII production.

 

Clostermann was refering to the Mk.IX's being helpless, and they were because they were hopelessly slow in comparison with the German aircraft. (Hence why I find it more reasonable to add the Mk.XIV for Bodenplatte)

No doubt Clostermann had good reasons to hold that point of view but it's just that, his point of view. There's a sea of British Commonwealth Spitfire pilot autobiographies out there, and other than Clostermann I don't recall any of them complaining that they felt outclassed when flying the IX late in the war. I suspect you (or more accurately the Luftwaffe pilots) will be in for a surprise if you think you'll easily out run a IX if you don't have a clear e advantage... except for 262 drivers of course

Edited February 11, 2018 by HBPencil

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

A decent article on differences between Spitfire Mk IX variants: 

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/spitfire-mk-ix-xi-and-xvi-variants-much-varied.html

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/spitfire-mk-ix-xi-and-xvi-variants-much-varied.html/2

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/spitfire-mk-ix-xi-and-xvi-variants-much-varied.html/3

[DD_Arthur]

No doubt Clostermann had good reasons to hold that point of view but it's just that, his point of view. There's a sea of British Commonwealth Spitfire pilot autobiographies out there, and other than Clostermann I don't recall any of them complaining that they felt outclassed when flying the IX late in the war. I suspect you (or more accurately the Luftwaffe pilots) will be in for a surprise if you think you'll easily out run a IX if you don't have a clear e advantage... except for 262 drivers of course

 

I rather think Clostermann had a considerable experience of flying Spitfires before becoming a Typhoon pilot and I'm not sure his opinion can be lightly brushed aside.  There is indeed a whole raft of memoirs from Spitfire pilots out there but most of the late war ones were just that - Spitfire pilots and nothing else.

 

They didn't get the experience of operationally flying other types.  By early 1945 the majority of spitfire pilots based in France and the low countries spent their time not on fighter sweeps but dropping bombs.

 

Typhoons were deployed to counter low level LW jabo attacks at dawn and dusk against allied vehicle parks, tank laargers, troop concentrations.   The Typhoon had a superior low level performance to the Spitfire IX. 

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

I rather think Clostermann had a considerable experience of flying Spitfires before becoming a Typhoon pilot and I'm not sure his opinion can be lightly brushed aside.  There is indeed a whole raft of memoirs from Spitfire pilots out there but most of the late war ones were just that - Spitfire pilots and nothing else.

 

They didn't get the experience of operationally flying other types.  By early 1945 the majority of spitfire pilots based in France and the low countries spent their time not on fighter sweeps but dropping bombs.

 

Typhoons were deployed to counter low level LW jabo attacks at dawn and dusk against allied vehicle parks, tank laargers, troop concentrations.   The Typhoon had a superior low level performance to the Spitfire IX. 

I think you mean Tempest; Typhoon wasn't a good fighter aircraft.

Edited February 11, 2018 by RoflSeal

[DD_Arthur]

I think you mean Tempest; Typhoon wasn't a good fighter aircraft.

 

Quite right    'Fraid I'm approaching the dribbling years.....

Edited February 11, 2018 by DD_Arthur

[Wulf]

So what can we expect features wise with the (Spitfire IX "e" ) ? E wing , Mkii gyro sight ect?? is a bubble canopy a possibility ? Cheers 

 

Well it seems that we'll only see the Spitfire IXe configuration. Hopefully we'll have clipped wings as a modification. There's a good argument to be made for the Mark II GGS gunsight as a modification as it appears they were fitted to Spitfire IX's perhaps as early as April 1944 and then slowly rolled out to the fleet from there.

 

I don't think a bubble canopy is likely. That came later on (March?).

 

 

As I understand it, the bubble canopy was initially trialed on the Mk VIII, as has been mentioned by someone else on this page.  The cut back fuselage and bubble canopy mods were then simultaneously  incorporated in the production of Mk IX and Mk XVI Spitfires that came off the Castle Bromwich production line from September 1944.   So, apart from actual squadron level deployment issues, (which may or may no exist) there is no reason to believe that bubble canopy Spit IXs weren't available for use 'in theater' at the time of the Bodenplatte Op.

[unreasonable]

Something I wasn't aware of when I posted the OP was that the Spits that could carry bombs (which includes the IX of course) could also carry the 120lb smoke bomb, one on each hard point although I don't recall of ever hearing of them being operationally. Could be interesting to play the role of target marker.

 

<snip>

 

I do not know about the smoke bombs specifically but I do know that in 2nd TAF the Spitfires IXs and XVIs spent most of their time doing ground attack, with one 500lb and two 250lb bombs.  Not as good a load for ground attack as a Typhoon could carry, (two 1,000lb bombs, or rockets) but enough to be effective attacking road transport, trains etc and make daytime movement for the Germans a nightmare. 

 

So in the BoBd mix you can think of the Mk IX as an all rounder: ground attack capable but still capable of defending itself from air opposition. Ground pounders who wish to fly RAF/RCAF etc can enjoy the Spitfire experience too! 

[Trooper117]

Reading from one of the links provided above, it appears that only very late marks of the IX series, and then only a few, received the bubble type canopy. (Not sure what number 'a few' relates to)...

Regardless, I'm happy to see any modification the dev's decide to include.

[Dakpilot]

I am happy to see any mods included

 

But personally I am strongly against Dev time, research, 3D modelling and FM/system work being done on implementing very rare exotic and out of timeline features

 

much rather see that time used on something like the interior of B-25 and making it flyable or "collector planes" like G6 and La-5FN to expand a 'campaign/scenario'

 

just as an example, who would not want a bubble top late Spit?, but unless there is very good evidence of it being used in any significant numbers in the period, let the work/time/expenditure go elsewhere towards more content

 

What the BoBP "period'' is, is actually a hard question? some insisting it is only Jan 1st '45, or is it the general Ardennes campaign or should it include the next four months till War end? but that is rather another topic

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

Edited February 11, 2018 by Dakpilot

[unreasonable]

I would say that the BoBo period is whatever could have taken place on the BoBo map. Since we do not have that yet it is hard to be definitive, but I would be happy with a broad definition from autumn 1944 through to early spring 1945.  Which could get us a brown/gold autumn map, and a horrible dreary grey winter map, but not really a summer map. As for extent of the map - we do not know if the Ardennes area will even be in it, unless I have missed something.

 

As for what planes to add I would tend to ask for the most common types in each combat role useful for a tactical air game. So for example B-17 and Lancaster no, Mosquito and Typhoon yes. A Mk XIV is certainly a yes: but it does not need to be a bubble top IMHO.

[Guest deleted@50488]

Fully agree with Dakpilot above:

 

--->  Given the small ( talented ! ) team at 1C / 777, they'd rather concentrate on the main variants, and fine tune them as well as all of the already released aircraft that may require fine tuning instead of spending time with fancy variants...

Edited February 11, 2018 by jcomm-in-combat

[Panthera]

No doubt Clostermann had good reasons to hold that point of view but it's just that, his point of view. There's a sea of British Commonwealth Spitfire pilot autobiographies out there, and other than Clostermann I don't recall any of them complaining that they felt outclassed when flying the IX late in the war. I suspect you (or more accurately the Luftwaffe pilots) will be in for a surprise if you think you'll easily out run a IX if you don't have a clear e advantage... except for 262 drivers of course

 

It's called survivor bias. If you've got an aircraft that is 60-100 km/h slower than the opposition then you're gonna have a hard time, as the Fw-190A3 & 4 demonstrated so devastatingly against the Spitfire in 42.

Edited February 11, 2018 by Panthera

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

But personally I am strongly against Dev time, research, 3D modelling and FM/system work being done on implementing very rare exotic and out of timeline features

 

I think you've just defined half of the Luftwaffe aircraft that will be added. Also, its hard to to say what can be exactly out of timeline. Considering operation was executed on January 1st, 1945 this is the last opportunity to play with both common and rare aircraft of this kind.

 

 

 

just as an example, who would not want a bubble top late Spit?, but unless there is very good evidence of it being used in any significant numbers in the period, let the work/time/expenditure go elsewhere towards more content   What the BoBP "period'' is, is actually a hard question? some insisting it is only Jan 1st '45, or is it the general Ardennes campaign or should it include the next four months till War end? but that is rather another topic

Development of BoBP barely started with models and you already sound like its time to start cutting corners. Weird. 

Besides, since when an evidence of significant numbers was a problem here ? Were the significant numbers of 190s during our Stalingrad timeframe ? Or Mc.202s over Moscow ?   

[Kurfurst]

 

I think you've just defined half of the Luftwaffe aircraft that will be added.  

 

 

I wonder which one would be 'rare and exotic' from the following German types developed for Bodenplatte.

 

A-8 production, cc. 6655 planes

G-14 production, cc. 4000 planes

K-4 production, cc. 1600* planes

D-9 production, cc. 1800 planes

Me 262 production, cc. 1433 planes

 

* not to mention similar (not modelled) G-10 production, cc. 2600 planes

[Dakpilot]

 

I think you've just defined half of the Luftwaffe aircraft that will be added. Also, its hard to to say what can be exactly out of timeline. Considering operation was executed on January 1st, 1945 this is the last opportunity to play with both common and rare aircraft of this kind.

 

 

 

Development of BoBP barely started with models and you already sound like its time to start cutting corners. Weird. 

Besides, since when an evidence of significant numbers was a problem here ? Were the significant numbers of 190s during our Stalingrad timeframe ? Or Mc.202s over Moscow ?   

 

 

 

Well there were significant FW190 in the Stalingrad timeframe, and a correct map included, there are some good historic scripted campaigns for it

 

and I hope that in the new Historic 'Squadron based' Career it will only be available in correct timeline on Velikie Luki and Kuban maps as AI to avoid jarring history

 

The Fw190 was a serious sales draw for many for the initial release..sensible marketing

 

If servers creators choose to include it over Stalingrad map...well their choice, and players choice to use that server or prefer to use or create a more historic one

 

Just because there were some seemingly strange decisions in the early days of the series when it was finding it's feet and struggling for survival does not justify repeating the same thing or set a precedent that it must always be so

 

Mc 202 was added due to winning the Dev run poll along with P-40, at this time future plans were unsure and a potential Med match up was a good marketing idea

 

as for saying I am already advocating 'cutting corners' quite simply I am saying dev time should go on getting more content that is relevant than wasting time on 'popular' but fantasy/extremely rare things, nothing more, if things genuinely 'fit' I am all for them

 

if it is clearly shown that gyro sight and bubble canopy were significantly used on MkIXe, then good include them

 

Just my personal feelings/preferences however weird you may feel they are 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I wonder which one would be 'rare and exotic' from the following German types developed for Bodenplatte.

 

A-8 production, cc. 6655 planes

G-14 production, cc. 4000 planes

K-4 production, cc. 1600* planes

D-9 production, cc. 1800 planes

Me 262 production, cc. 1433 planes

 

* not to mention similar (not modelled) G-10 production, cc. 2600 planes

That's why word "half" is there, dont worry, I dont think A-8 or G-14 were rare But from those K-4s, D-9s and Me 262s how many were actually built until and operational until January 1st ? 

Your own signature on that other forums states the following: "The Answer to the Ultimate Question of the K-4, the Universe, and Everything: Powerloading 550 HP / ton, 1593 having been made up to 31th March 1945, 314 K-4s were being operated in frontline service on 31 January 1945." 

And keep in mind I'm not against either K-4, D-9 (with Ez 42 gyro gunsight) or Me 262. Those are fine and relevant aircraft. But in comparison to the older variants they were available in lesser numbers. 

 

 

 

Just my personal feelings/preferences however weird you may feel they are 

I dont think that asking for a Spitfire IXe with a number of late war features is irrelevant. 25 pound boost, Mark II GGS sight or bubble canopy are relevant changes that Spitfire took advantage of. Personally, I prefer less content but of greater quality and depth. One aircraft that is developed to every last detail is worth to me more than a bunch of simple ones.

[NZTyphoon]

For Interest, here are the tactics used by 2 TAF: From Shores & Thomas 2 Tactical Air Force: Volume 4

 

[ShamrockOneFive]

For Interest, here are the tactics used by 2 TAF: From Shores & Thomas 2 Tactical Air Force: Volume 4

1-2TAF tac001.jpg1-2TAF tac002.jpg

1-2TAF tac003.jpg1-2TAF tac004.jpg1-2TAF tac005.jpg

 

Wonderful reference. Thanks for posting that!

[Wulf]

Yes interesting.

 

I note the site states that Tempests had a victory to loss ratio against enemy piston engine fighters of about 6: 1 whereas Spitfire XIVs had a victory to loss ratio of 14 to one. 

Edited February 12, 2018 by Wulf

[HagarTheHorrible]

Yes interesting.

 

I note the site states that Tempests had a victory to loss ratio against enemy piston engine fighters of about 6: 1 whereas Spitfire XIVs had a victory to loss ratio of 14 to one.

 

Probably related to how they were employed and circumstances regarding contact. The Spitfires probably flew missions that allowed for more tactical awareness, the Tempests on the other hand possibly fought pitched battles that were more Mano a Mano, constrained by the visibility, operational altitude and weather conditions. That's certainly the impression I got from reading Cloisterman' book.

 

It'll be interesting to see how the Tempest fairs in Bp. One of it's advantages, from what I understand, was not just that it was fast but that, just as importantly or maybe more so , it's cruise speed was also fast, which from what I understand was the opposite to that of the 109.