Bf 109 G14 v K4

[69TD_Hajo_Garlic]

On 5/28/2018 at 7:53 AM, BlitzPig_EL said:

I feel for the poor Spitfire once the rest of the plane set is released.

 

For us now, flying it alongside the current Ost Front planes it feels like a true hot rod, but once the other late war birds come along the Mk IX will be the slowest plane in the Bodenplatte plane set.  Even with the Merlin 70 at altitude, the P51 and P47 will leave it behind.

It still climbs and manuevers very well and is easy to fly with an effective armament and good visability.  I think it will be competitive but as others have said I wish all planes applicable would receive engine mods

[303_Bies]

Spitfire IX, still, will be one of the best dogfighters in Bodenplatte set. It will have better climb, better turn rate and better low speed handling than P-51 or P-47. In tight dogfight pure max speed mean only one - you would be able to run away. Acceleration will decide who's faster during near-stall tug, not max speed.

For rather unrealistic 1v1 honorable duel Spit will be one of the best if not the best plane in the game.

Edited August 20, 2018 by bies

[Talisman]

2 hours ago, Joeasyrida said:

It still climbs and manuevers very well and is easy to fly with an effective armament and good visability.  I think it will be competitive but as others have said I wish all planes applicable would receive engine mods

Leaving wing/armament aside, I believe the Spit IX we have is a March 43 aircraft on the technological time line in terms of flying performance, since that is when the Merlin 66 with 18 lbs boost was released for squadron operational service.  

The E wing was introduced in Apr 1944 I think, which was some 3 months before the G-14 arrived operationally over France I believe.  As for the gyro gunsight, was that first issued to some Spit IX for D-Day operations in June 44?

So we appear to have a March 43 aircraft in terms of flying performance, with an early to mid 1944 upgrade to allow for 50 cals to replace .303 and additionally a gyro gunsight.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

[=X51=VC_]

45 minutes ago, bies said:

Spitfire IX, still, will be one of the best dogfighters in Bodenplatte set. It will have better climb, better turn rate and better low speed handling than P-51 or P-47. In tight dogfight pure max speed mean only one - you would be able to run away. Acceleration will decide who's faster during near-stall tug, not max speed.

For rather unrealistic 1v1 honorable duel Spit will be one of the best if not the best plane in the game.

 

Basically this. There are no strategic bombers or other incentives to be at high altitude in Bodenplatte. People will load their Jugs and Typhonns with as many bombs and rockets as they can carry, and in MP servers we will have the same focus on mud-moving and protecting mud-movers as we do now, with the fight at low altitude and the missions won/lost by strafing the same mix of ground targets.

 

I'm pretty sure the LF.IX will be very much in its element, and will be the bane of the LW much like the Yak is now, for basically the same reasons.

[Legioneod]

One thing I love about Bodenplatte is that the Germans will have to contend with allied aircraft at all altitudes instead of just mid-low alt. Currently if the Axis players feel threatened they just climb and run because not much can match them at altitude, but in Bodenplatte the P-51 and P-47 can match them and are superior in some regards at high altitude.

 

Bodenplatte has a real nice mix of aircraft that really complement each other, no one aircraft can do it all at all altitudes, each aircraft has it's place. Of course, we will still have a few all round aircraft like the P-51 and 109s.

[Blackhawk_FR]

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

One thing I love about Bodenplatte is that the Germans will have to contend with allied aircraft at all altitudes instead of just mid-low alt.

 

 

Why?

[Legioneod]

5 minutes ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

 

Why?

Just for fun, currently the Axis have no real competition up high, but now with the addition of Bodenplatte I'll be able to have those nice high alt fights and I'll also be able to better defend myself against high flying germans. German players will no longer have that clear cut escape route.

 

Low alt turn and burn type of fights really aren't my thing, I like the high alt fights.

[Blackhawk_FR]

I see... but SA is way more important than the advantages of your aircraft  

[Bremspropeller]

2 hours ago, Legioneod said:

One thing I love about Bodenplatte is that the Germans will have to contend with allied aircraft at all altitudes instead of just mid-low alt. Currently if the Axis players feel threatened they just climb and run because not much can match them at altitude, but in Bodenplatte the P-51 and P-47 can match them and are superior in some regards at high altitude.

 

That's one of the key technological probles the Germans had made for themselves. By basicly fudging up proper engine-procurement in 1941-42, they assured technologically falling behind for the most part of 1944. The hand full of optimized hi-alt 109s didn't help the problem.

 

On the eastern front, the Luftwaffe was facing ever-incresing low-alt performance, while in the west, they were challenged by Spitfires, Mustangs and Thunderbolts of ever-incresing performnce (not to name Tempests and Mosquitos, that imposed their own special kind of problems).

The Luftwaffe would have had the right airplane to face the technological problems in the Ta 152C (a very capable, high-performing airframe with the possiblity of adding a large internal fuel volume*), but we all know that it came too late. Much. Too. Late.

 

___

* The late Doras also had that capability but were never fielded in that configuration/ Rüstsatz. It was basicly an optional unprotected bag-type fuel bladder in an empty part of the wing.

Not exactly a P-51, but much better than taking-off on an intercept-mission with external tanks.

[=X51=VC_]

2 hours ago, Legioneod said:

One thing I love about Bodenplatte is that the Germans will have to contend with allied aircraft at all altitudes instead of just mid-low alt. Currently if the Axis players feel threatened they just climb and run because not much can match them at altitude, but in Bodenplatte the P-51 and P-47 can match them and are superior in some regards at high altitude.

 

Bodenplatte has a real nice mix of aircraft that really complement each other, no one aircraft can do it all at all altitudes, each aircraft has it's place. Of course, we will still have a few all round aircraft like the P-51 and 109s.

 

Yup. Not saying the current setup is unbalanced either way, but the almost mutual exclusivity of the two sides' optimal operating regimes can make for some very boring and frustrating play regardless of what you're flying. If both sides have a tool for all altiudes, the fights will be fairer, less predictable and more frequent, which makes for more fun all round!

[Mac_Messer]

12 hours ago, Legioneod said:

Just for fun, currently the Axis have no real competition up high, but now with the addition of Bodenplatte I'll be able to have those nice high alt fights and I'll also be able to better defend myself against high flying germans. German players will no longer have that clear cut escape route.

 

Low alt turn and burn type of fights really aren't my thing, I like the high alt fights.

For a LW player, meeting a P51/P47 up high in 1944 is pretty similar to encountering P39 in 1942 mid-low alt. No need to run. So far, all the American crates are very demanding aircraft and I`m not sure if Mustang / Thunderbolt will be much different.

 

Then again, in those encounters I`d say good team play is the deciding factor.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Ultimately the best-performing aircraft in the game is going to be the one that has a wingman.  Whatever the altitude.

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

Regarding the 20mm vs 30mm cannon discussion on page, there I see a lot of technical yada yada by the veteran FM posters on these forums, who, like they regularly do, descend towards ad homini by ridiculing their opponents' remarks as 'outlandish'.

 

That said, of course the K4 allowed for a quick cannon refit, and the choice could be made depending on the mission. The last months were bomber intercept scenarios, hence the factory was left with the MK108. But if you take the K4 into an air superiority competition against other fighters like BoBP will be, then by all means, the pilots would mount the old MG151/20. 

 

280 page source: Go read Jagdgeschwader 51 >>Mölders<< Eine Chronik, ISBN 3-613-01045-3 and get an idea on how much customization the German Luftwaffe allowed their crews, and how little standardization the fleet actually had. It was borderline lawless - competence was considered to be found at the level of the Gruppe, a subset of the squad, and thus descisions made by principle of Auftragstaktik. Regarding the gear management, it puts the laissez-faire style modern Israeli army into its shadow. 

 

 

Supporting anything except the option to fit the MG151/20 as a module is absolute nonsense.

Edited August 21, 2018 by SCG_Fenris_Wolf

[MiloMorai]

How long did it take to remove one size of cannon and install the other size of cannon?

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

Less than changing spark plugs and oil. It was all modular, and you didn't even have to sync them in.

[MiloMorai]

Yes, I see how easy it would be.

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

"Much fear from allied pilots I sense."

Master Yoda.

[Legioneod]

4 hours ago, Mac_Messer said:

For a LW player, meeting a P51/P47 up high in 1944 is pretty similar to encountering P39 in 1942 mid-low alt. No need to run. So far, all the American crates are very demanding aircraft and I`m not sure if Mustang / Thunderbolt will be much different.

 

Then again, in those encounters I`d say good team play is the deciding factor.

American aircraft are all very hands on, I think that's why players have so much trouble with them compared to German or Soviet aircraft.

The P-51 is a very easy aircraft to fly and it's engine management is pretty simple, the P-47 will require more knowledge to use it properly since there are more things going on in the P-47 cockpit than in the P-51.

 

P-51 engine management is basically like the P-40 or P-39. The P-47 is similar but you also have the turbo and water injection to consider.

 

Basically at the end of the day it just comes down to who knows their aircraft better.

A 1v1 between an ace 109 pilot and an ace Jug/Mustang pilot will be a tough fight for both sides.

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, SCG_Fenris_Wolf said:

That said, of course the K4 allowed for a quick cannon refit, and the choice could be made depending on the mission. The last months were bomber intercept scenarios, hence the factory was left with the MK108. But if you take the K4 into an air superiority competition against other fighters like BoBP will be, then by all means, the pilots would mount the old MG151/20. 

 

Yet, after all this time, no one has shown concrete proof the K-4s were fitted with a 20 mm nose cannon. 

4 hours ago, SCG_Fenris_Wolf said:

Less than changing spark plugs and oil. It was all modular, and you didn't even have to sync them in.

 

Lol what? They were fitted like that at the factory. Again, show some sources showing the 20mm was swapped in the field for a 30mm, and vice versa. 

 

Whatever cannon was fitted was based on what was available at the factory, not the mission type.

[MiloMorai]

From Sept 44 to March 45 production

 

G-6 of all versions - 1014

G-14 - 2035

G14/AS - 1377

G-14/U4 - 654

G-10 - 721

G-10/R6 - 971

G-10/U4 - 366

K-4 - 1693

 

except for G-10/R6 and /U4 and K-4 all other models were either single or double digit production numbers in Feb and March 45.

source: Post #26 of  http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=2462&amp;page=3&amp;highlight=neubau+109  

 

/U4 is 30mm MK108

/R6 is bad weather equipment, autopilot

 

For disposition of these a/c in units in 1944 see http://www.ww2.dk/ 

 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Yet, after all this time, no one has shown concrete proof the K-4s were fitted with a 20 mm nose cannon. 

 

Have seen such but iirc it was not many and because there was a shortage of MK108s. Imho should not be an option for the K-4.

[Kurfurst]

12 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Yet, after all this time, no one has shown concrete proof the K-4s were fitted with a 20 mm nose cannon. 

 

Lol what? They were fitted like that at the factory. Again, show some sources showing the 20mm was swapped in the field for a 30mm, and vice versa. 

 

Whatever cannon was fitted was based on what was available at the factory, not the mission type.

 

Its a bit more problematic than that. For one, the location of ammo containers were different - the MK 108 had the ammo mounted in the fuselage, in front of the cocpit, the MG 151/20 on the other hand it fed from ammo boxes in the wing root. The MK 108 also required pneumatic lines (earliest examples had oxygene bottles for that). The physical mountings were also probably different. Long story short, you couldn't just slam an MG 151 into a K-4.

 

Sure, you find them both of various modifications of the 109, but it was a bit more work than just swapping one cannon for the other. Only the (never serially produced, ) K-2 was to have the MG 151/20. It appears to have been replaced in production plans by the G-10 hybrid.

 

As for the K-4, officially it only had the MK 108. There were no other officially sanctioned options. Whether at times factories, that may have a shortage of MK 108 delivery for example, may or may not have hacked MG 151s into the 109K, but it seems entirely speculative, and if any, exceedingly rare, odd modifications driven by necessity. Personally, I doubt it ever existed, at least to no more extent than a handfull of non-standard oddballs.

[MiloMorai]

Good post Kurfy.

[LukeFF]

44 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

Good post Kurfy.

 

Agreed, thanks - especially the info about ammo storage. That wasn't something I was aware of before. 

[EAF19_Marsh]

Agreed, had never seen anything about K-4 with a 151 but did not appreciate the difference in the ammunition feed system. Obliged to you.

 

One thing I have wondered - is the disappearance of the gondola cannon tied to the adoption of the MK 108? I suspected that it was felt the additional 20mm  cannon were no longer needed and the performance impact was becoming increasing problematic.

[PatrickAWlson]

17 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Agreed, had never seen anything about K-4 with a 151 but did not appreciate the difference in the ammunition feed system. Obliged to you.

 

One thing I have wondered - is the disappearance of the gondola cannon tied to the adoption of the MK 108? I suspected that it was felt the additional 20mm  cannon were no longer needed and the performance impact was becoming increasing problematic.

I would guess that reason along with the presence of escort fighters.  In the early days the performance hit didn't hurt too much if you waited for the escorts to turn around.  Once the P-51s started escorting to the target and back dragging those gondolas around could not have been fun,

[Mac_Messer]

3 hours ago, Legioneod said:

Basically at the end of the day it just comes down to who knows their aircraft better.

A 1v1 between an ace 109 pilot and an ace Jug/Mustang pilot will be a tough fight for both sides.

From my pov it has always been about an aircraft being n00b friendly  so when you get average pilots on both sides, the feeble skills are better used in the more friendly type. In that respect, in BoX titles so far it is British>German>Soviet>American. Will better performance of P51/P47 be the deciding factor for virtual pilots I have my doubts.

[SCG_ItsDrifter]

Is it me or did i just see someone get 6 up-votes who didn't list a single source in his arguement?
 

[=X51=VC_]

For me the option to fit the K-4 with the MG151/20 is one of gameplay choice. If it's plausible in real life that's good enough justification in my view, even if it can't be positively proved to have happened. The simple reason is that although some people might love the MK108, it is a sub-optimal weapon for fighter vs fighter combat, which is what most of BoBp will be and what a lot of people want to do when joining the game. To essentially ward off a plane from a large chunk of the playerbase due to forced armament choice would be a bad decision in my opinion.

[SCG_Syn]

3 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

Its a bit more problematic than that. For one, the location of ammo containers were different - the MK 108 had the ammo mounted in the fuselage, in front of the cocpit, the MG 151/20 on the other hand it fed from ammo boxes in the wing root. The MK 108 also required pneumatic lines (earliest examples had oxygene bottles for that). The physical mountings were also probably different. Long story short, you couldn't just slam an MG 151 into a K-4.

 

 

Please source this, If this is the case which I doubt it is you would see much more ammunition available and an increase of detonation of the ammo since its "located in the wing roots" instead of the engine where it has protection in the case of a metal plate seperating the pilot and engine.

Hell even warthunder models these things in the case of their "X-ray vision"

 

Edit: Also from just a production stand point it makes no sense to complicate production by moving ammunition storage to the wingroots. 

Where would the joint for the Landing gear fit?

Picture source: Bf 109 F-K Willy Radinger and Wolfgang Otto

 

Edited August 21, 2018 by SCG_Sinerox
Adding

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

How this guy (spelling, my friend, it's written either Kurfürst or Kurfuerst) gets 6 upvotes without citing any source, while I gave a source which was ignored, shows the quality of all this. Is that person the one that created a website, and now is some kind of Maddox' like authority to people in this community on this? Doesn't convince me the least. Next time I'm in Gatow (when they've fixed Hangar 3), I'll get photographs of a Gustav.  Again, without sources, such claims like "the central cannon's ammo stored in the wings" cannot be taken seriously. They did use ammo boxes, but that those were stored in the wings would be new to me.

 

Any way that is turnt, it still would not delete the fact, that the Umbausatz U4 of the Gustav would easily replace an MG151 with an MK108, and thus not stand in the way of an MG151 option in the K4.

Edited August 21, 2018 by SCG_Fenris_Wolf

[SCG_Syn]

I don't usally post on these forums as its a waste of time but I can't stand by if the devs truly look at these. Also please source information when making a claim, especially if its one as big as " the MK 108 had the ammo mounted in the fuselage, in front of the cocpit, the MG 151/20 on the other hand it fed from ammo boxes in the wing root." 

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

6 minutes ago, SCG_Sinerox said:

I don't usally post on these forums as its a waste of time but I can't stand by if the devs truly look at these. Also please source information when making a claim, especially if its one as big as " the MK 108 had the ammo mounted in the fuselage, in front of the cocpit, the MG 151/20 on the other hand it fed from ammo boxes in the wing root." 

 

13 minutes ago, SCG_Fenris_Wolf said:

There was no room there, it was all occupied by the gear.

 

That was by far the most fantastic comment ever. How this guy (spelling, my friend, it's written either Kurfürst or Kurfuerst) gets 6 upvotes without citing any source, while I gave a source which was ignored, shows the quality of all this. Is that the one that created a website, and now is some kind of Maddox' like authority to people in this community on this? Doesn't convince me the least. Next time I'm in Gatow (when they've fixed Hangar 3), I'll get photographs of a Gustav.  Again, without sources, such claims like "the central cannon's ammo stored in the wings" cannot be taken seriously.

 

24 minutes ago, SCG_Sinerox said:

Please source this, If this is the case which I doubt it is you would see much more ammunition available and an increase of detonation of the ammo since its "located in the wing roots" instead of the engine where it has protection in the case of a metal plate seperating the pilot and engine.

Hell even warthunder models these things in the case of their "X-ray vision"

 

 Edit: Also from just a production stand point it makes no sense to complicate production by moving ammunition storage to the wingroots. 

Where would the joint for the Landing gear fit?

Picture source: Bf 109 F-K Willy Radinger and Wolfgang Otto

  



 

http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.com/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/Messerschmitt/Me 109/Bf 109 G-5 G-6 Wa.pdf page 26/27

 

Edited August 21, 2018 by RoflSeal

[SCG_Syn]

Thank you so much for the source! That's intresting, I've never heard of such a thing.

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

Very interesting indeed. It doesn't change anything regarding an MG151 in the K4 though.

 

There were Umrüstsätze for the Gustavs as well, that would allow them to mount the MK108.

Edited August 21, 2018 by SCG_Fenris_Wolf

[SCG_Syn]

I'm amazed they fit it there, between the landing legs and the radiator is a tight fit.

I'll try to find some information on that side of things Fenris

 

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

From the same source

 

http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.com/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/Messerschmitt/Me 109/Bf 109 G-5 G-6 Wa.pdf#page=20

 

 

Seems like it was easy to get out the MG151 and mount it back in after all. So easy, they did it regularly for maintenance. Look at page 20.

 

 

P.S. Funny thing is, when you realize that the discussion about whether the ammo was mounted in the wing roots or in the fuselage doesn't make any difference to my initial comment on the exchangeability of MG151 and Mk108, you can learn some things about how to try to trick someone in a forum argument.

Edited August 21, 2018 by SCG_Fenris_Wolf

[=RvE=Windmills]

2 minutes ago, SCG_Fenris_Wolf said:

Very interesting indeed. It doesn't change anything regarding an MG151 in the K4 though.

 

There were Umrüstsätze for the Gustavs as well, that would allow them to mount the MK108.

 

I guess the answer hinges on what people believe qualifies a mod for inclusion.

 

It was apparently 'possible' in the same way it was for G series, though if it was never provably done does that still make it eligible for a mod ingame?

 

I feel you can make a reasonable case either way.

[LukeFF]

45 minutes ago, SCG_Fenris_Wolf said:

How this guy (spelling, my friend, it's written either Kurfürst or Kurfuerst) gets 6 upvotes without citing any source, while I gave a source which was ignored, shows the quality of all this. Is that person the one that created a website, and now is some kind of Maddox' like authority to people in this community on this? Doesn't convince me the least. Next time I'm in Gatow (when they've fixed Hangar 3), I'll get photographs of a Gustav.  Again, without sources, such claims like "the central cannon's ammo stored in the wings" cannot be taken seriously. They did use ammo boxes, but that those were stored in the wings would be new to me.

 

Your source is a German-language book not easy to acquire and, since it's in German, one a lot of people wouldn't be able to read anyways (side point: I have a copy of this book, but I know I'll never be able to read it). 

 

Furthermore, you make broad, sweeping claims about the German military essentially being a 'lawless' organization that could do anything it wanted wherever and whenever, state it was an easy swap, yet in the end give zero examples from said book or any other sources showing that K-4s were actually fitted with 20 mm nose guns. 

 

This sounds a lot like the argument someone else made here a while ago that it was a simple matter ("a screwdriver and time") to remove the fuselage fuel tank from an He 111 and plop in a bomb bay. Predictably, though, that madness was debunked. 

29 minutes ago, SCG_Fenris_Wolf said:

 

There were Umrüstsätze for the Gustavs as well, that would allow them to mount the MK108.

 

...at the factory. 

Edited August 21, 2018 by LukeFF

[SCG_Syn]

Luke, that book is a creditable source even if you or I cannot read it. Althrough generally it's helpfull if the person presenting information and a source could translate said source as it furthers the strength of that statement(atleast from my perspective).

[SCG_ItsDrifter]

7 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Your source is a German-language book not easy to acquire and, since it's in German, one a lot of people wouldn't be able to read anyways (side point: I have a copy of this book, but I know I'll never be able to read it). 

 

Furthermore, you make broad, sweeping claims about the German military essentially being a 'lawless' organization that could do anything it wanted wherever and whenever, state it was an easy swap, yet in the end give zero examples from said book or any other sources showing that K-4s were actually fitted with 20 mm nose guns. 

 

This sounds a lot like the argument someone else made here a while ago that it was a simple matter ("a screwdriver and time") to remove the fuselage fuel tank from an He 111 and plop in a bomb bay. Predictably, though, that madness was debunked. 

 

...at the factory. 

 

 

But you support a guy who gave 0 evidence of his side of the argument?