A8 vs. Pe2

[BlitzPig_EL]

Tried it last night in a test DF mission.   Now admittedly the AI are unarmed, but I'm simply talking about the durability of the Pe2 vs. the A8's guns.

 

It's laughable.  Against an A8 with the additional two Mk.108s, the Pe2s are vaporized, and IL2s just take a quick tap of the trigger to completely fall to bits.

 

Bodenplatte is going to be a very different ball game for both sides.  These modern late war planes are going to utterly change the dynamic of how we approach combat in the sim.

[303_Bies]

FW190A-8 or Tempest will tear everything to pieces. 

Try to imagine Me262. 

[Finkeren]

First try with the A8 vs. A-20s I pulverize all  8 of them in 2 minutes without breaking a sweat and still had ammo left.

 

I wonder if the changes to damage calculation mentioned in the update announcement did something to beef up the HE damage of the contentious Minengeschoß? If so the lufties must be thrilled.

7 minutes ago, bies said:

FW190A-8 or Tempest will tear everything to pieces. 

Try to imagine Me262. 

 

Against fighters I’d take the ammo count and ballistics of the 20mm. What the 262 has is just ghoulish overkill.

[ShamrockOneFive]

I think that's the exciting thing about introducing different timeperiods of combat during WWII. So much changes so quickly in terms of speed and lethality. Adding WWI aircraft to the mix really changes it up too!

 

You can go from slow and tight turning and twisting WWI to early war WWII (Moscow) and then on to the end at Bodenplatte where aircraft are so much faster and more powerfully armed. It's awesome and I love the variety.

[kramer]

On the other hand it is so interesting we can still put up a fight in Kuban planes (like La-5FN or FW190A5) against those from Bodenplatte. With BF109's i can see the gradual evolution of the plane. There are no artificial changes like in WT, only specific upgrades, mostly an engine or visibility. Good pilot is still the most important in IL2. 

Even the best plane will do little if its pilot lose his focus.

[Archie]

Probably as it should be. In real life though the problem was getting through the swarms of escort fighters to make use of all that firepower!

[Ehret]

Just now, Finkeren said:

I wonder if the changes to damage calculation mentioned in the update announcement did something to beef up the HE damage of the contentious Minengeschoß? If so the lufties must be thrilled.

 

Not need for that - twice the rate of fire of 20/30mm shells ensure effects. The A8 has also a pair of 13mm machine guns which shouldn't be overlooked.

 

 

 

Edited July 19, 2018 by Ehret

[Yogiflight]

50 minutes ago, Finkeren said:

I wonder if the changes to damage calculation mentioned in the update announcement did something to beef up the HE damage of the contentious Minengeschoß?

Nope, according to Jason it is only the way bullets interact with WWI crates.

 

51 minutes ago, Finkeren said:

Against fighters I’d take the ammo count and ballistics of the 20mm.

I never use more than the inner four weapons when shooting on fighters and save the ammo of the two outer guns for the heavies. Or of course when the wingroot guns are out of ammo.

And you need better weapons late at war, because the fights were fought by higher speeds and you had less time to destroy more resistant aircrafts.

[=621=Samikatz]

It's gonna be really scary flying the B-25 when they make it flyable with planes like the A8 in the air that can just obliterate you. I can't imagine how quickly any 4 engined heavies would get destroyed with no hope to even try and evade

[JtD]

The Mk108 was the hardest hitting cannon in WW2 in terms of weight of fire per weight. It's just insane, and even post war the damage potential compares favourably with many far more modern weapons. The rather low projectile velocities made it less useful against ever faster targets, but against large and slow bombers, where pure destructive power counts, you'll have a hard time finding anything better well into the 1950's.

 

The relation in firepower between an A-3 with 2x7.92+2x20 vs. an A-8 with 2x13+4x20 or an A-8 with 2x13+2x20+2x30 is in the region of 1-2-4. Cramming this amount of firepower into such a small aircraft is pretty much insane. According to postwar US studies, you'd need about 25-50(!) .50cal Browinings with API ammunition to achieve the same level of lethality, depending on target and on how you define lethal.

[dkoor]

First thing I really did with 3.005 is QMB Fw-190A8 vs several Fokkers and SPADs... it's just fun, when you hit it with Mk108 it's like being hit with bomb

So much overkill that its actually fun.

[BlitzPig_EL]

20 minutes ago, dkoor said:

 

So much overkill that its actually fun.

 

That was my experience with attacking the IL2s.   The first one I shot down, I got very close to, and was rewarded by a shower of aircraft debris coming at me like I've never seen before.  I was lucky that my plane only took a couple of superficial hits from all those chunks of aluminum.

Edited July 19, 2018 by BlitzPig_EL

[CUJO_1970]

With the A8, you have twin .50 cal in the nose and in addition you have the (4) 20MM that are firing at the same velocity and trajectory. With the A3 and A5, you have 3 separate gun types firing at different trajectories and velocities...so catching an aircraft in convergence with that amount of hitting power in the A8 is just going to vaporize it.

 

The A8 is essentially gross overkill when it comes to firepower, there is anecdote in Donald Caldwell's JG/26 history where a new pilot asked why there were no outboard cannons installed in his 190A8 - one of the more experienced pilots just laughed at him and replied "you don't need them".

 

Would be interesting option to delete outboard cannons in the fighter version - the F8 is more than capable of defending itself and I suppose the D-9 will do just fine with this armament.

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, =621=Samikatz said:

It's gonna be really scary flying the B-25 when they make it flyable with planes like the A8 in the air that can just obliterate you. I can't imagine how quickly any 4 engined heavies would get destroyed with no hope to even try and evade

 

That's why you don't fly without escorts.

[Bremspropeller]

1 hour ago, CUJO_1970 said:

With the A8, you have twin .50 cal in the nose and in addition you have the (4) 20MM that are firing at the same velocity and trajectory. With the A3 and A5, you have 3 separate gun types firing at different trajectories and velocities...so catching an aircraft in convergence with that amount of hitting power in the A8 is just going to vaporize it.

 

The A8 is essentially gross overkill when it comes to firepower, there is anecdote in Donald Caldwell's JG/26 history where a new pilot asked why there were no outboard cannons installed in his 190A8 - one of the more experienced pilots just laughed at him and replied "you don't need them".

 

Would be interesting option to delete outboard cannons in the fighter version - the F8 is more than capable of defending itself and I suppose the D-9 will do just fine with this armament.

 

The 2x 20mm option in A-8s wasn't used too overwhelmingly often, but it was a common loadout option nonetheless.

I just today stumbled over a picture-series of a couple of A-8s without the outer guns, where nobody even had bothered fairing the pass-through holes in the leading edges. Supposedly, the airframes were earmarked for the Werfergranate Rüstsatz, but it wasn't installed.

 

Fun fact:

The "Taktisches Waffenloch" (literally "tactical weapon-hole") that was placed within the wing (where the MG151 and it's ammo-supply was located at) was considered for the use of fuel-storage in late war design-studies. It never materialized, though.

[PainGod85]

7 hours ago, Finkeren said:

overkill

 

I'm sorry, I don't know what you're talking about.

[RedKestrel]

9 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

 

I'm sorry, I don't know what you're talking about.

There is no such thing as overkill. There is only "Keep firing!" and "I need to reload"

 

[CUJO_1970]

39 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Fun fact:

The "Taktisches Waffenloch" (literally "tactical weapon-hole") that was placed within the wing (where the MG151 and it's ammo-supply was located at) was considered for the use of fuel-storage in late war design-studies. It never materialized, though.

 

I like the look of these, low drag overwing tanks:

 

Spoiler

 

Edited July 19, 2018 by CUJO_1970

[dkoor]

8 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Tried it last night in a test DF mission.   Now admittedly the AI are unarmed, but I'm simply talking about the durability of the Pe2 vs. the A8's guns.

 

It's laughable.  Against an A8 with the additional two Mk.108s, the Pe2s are vaporized, and IL2s just take a quick tap of the trigger to completely fall to bits.

 

Bodenplatte is going to be a very different ball game for both sides.  These modern late war planes are going to utterly change the dynamic of how we approach combat in the sim.

 

I agree.

I'm not in the same league as many of the guys here regarding knowledge of WW2 aircraft, but from what I've read Fw-190A's are very often used as bomber killers (especially A8 model often referred to as Stürmbock), many times LW equipped them with additional armour plates which really made them little more that targets when it comes to good ole twitchy dogfight. Wurger is known not to appreciate sudden stick inputs especially at lower speeds, but armour and additional heavy cannons bring this issue to whole another level...

 

If IL-2 1946 is ANYTHING to judge by, Fw-190A8 stands very, very, very little chance against P-51D and absolutely no chance once fight goes on even terms. P-51D is simply superior in agility and speed. I'd say that it probably stands even less chance vs Tempest.

Long story short, Fw-190A8 is going to need escort or a very careful and experienced operator to do well.

 

[PainGod85]

Well, these flying bricks weren't really meant to mix it up with fighters. Also note how we're still missing the 30 mm canopy armor glass.

[sevenless]

9 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

 

It's laughable.  Against an A8 with the additional two Mk.108s, the Pe2s are vaporized, and IL2s just take a quick tap of the trigger to completely fall to bits.

 

That is what it was supposed to do back then. The R2, R7 and R8 variants were pure bomber killers and needed fighter escort to get through to the B17 and B24 streams. No configs designed to get into some dogfighting with escorts.

[JV69badatflyski]

7 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

Well, these flying bricks weren't really meant to mix it up with fighters. Also note how we're still missing the 30 mm canopy armor glass.

 

[E69_geramos109]

7 hours ago, =621=Samikatz said:

It's gonna be really scary flying the B-25 when they make it flyable with planes like the A8 in the air that can just obliterate you. I can't imagine how quickly any 4 engined heavies would get destroyed with no hope to even try and evade

B25 is quite well defended by gunners. If each of them is as powerfull as the P2 gunner will be difficult to get close to hit with the mk108

[Ehret]

Just now, E69_geramos109 said:

B25 is quite well defended by gunners. If each of them is as powerfull as the P2 gunner will be difficult to get close to hit with the mk108

 

High angular velocity and fast closure rate will help. Not colliding with the target, or remains, is the major difficulty - at least from my initial experience with the A8 in the QM. Still, this will get much harder when driving the 262, especially engaging smaller planes (not big bombers in the BOBP). IMHO, a good way to experience something similar now is to practice BnZ against WW1 planes.

[Bremspropeller]

2 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

I like the look of these, low drag overwing tanks:

 

  Hide contents

 

 

Those are the forerunners of the "conformal fuel tanks" used on some fighters today.

They create some degree of lift, so a good portion of the additional weight is made up. The "Doppelreiter" tanks (shown above) could also be jettisioned in flight.