American Iron

[ZachariasX]

3 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

External tanks were used during the SCW and could have been in use from the start of the BoB.

On the Henschel 123 and Heinkel 51. AFAIR They even had an ignitor to let them explode once you dropped them. In Poland, the were also used in 1939. After that, the GL was more intersted in bob racks than tanks and the 109E7 became the first 109 to recieve the ETC 250 rack that could also accept a fuel tank. The others only could be fitted with bombs.

[Legioneod]

How bout we look at how the current german aircraft in Bodenplatte are modeled instead of speculating?

[purK]

21 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

<Insert negativity here>

 

Man as nice a guy as you seem to be, you really need to cool it with the constant nay-saying. You truly have no idea what the devs have planned for BOBP.

[Ehret]

3 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Yeah really [edited] cruise specs, I think the Mustang is the only one in the planeset with similar.

 

[edited] because the 109 couldn't go anywhere near distance that the Mustang could. Besides, in the sim the "cruise" for Axis fighters practically means flying at a combat power which is ridiculous. Of course there is more to long distance flying than just range. What about pilot's stamina and how it's affected by extremely cramped cockpit? How nice it must had been to lack full controllable trims? Or to die in mundane airfield incidents because of outrageous gears. In the sim all those don't matter thus the inflated impression of the Bf.

Edited November 4, 2018 by SYN_Haashashin

[Willy__]

5 minutes ago, Ehret said:

What about pilot's stamina and how it's affected by extremely cramped cockpit? How nice it must had been to lack full controllable trims? Or to die in mundane airfield incidents because of outrageous gears. In the sim all those doesn't matter thus the inflated impression of the Bf.

 

You could say the same about the russian birds.... 

 

Wheres @LukeFF  with his dead horse when you need it ?

[Aap]

14 minutes ago, Ehret said:

Shitty because the 109 couldn't go anywhere near distance that the Mustang could.

 

Distance and cruise speed are two different things and I think it was pretty clear that he was responding to the claim about cruise speed "that wasn't fast to begin with".

 

What comes to trims then while it has been up a lot how 109 pilots "had strong left legs", because they did not have rudder trims, I think the problem was not so big for cruising, as their rudders had been trimmed for cruising speed on the ground.

[Ehret]

19 minutes ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

What comes to trims then while it has been up a lot how 109 pilots "had strong left legs", because they did not have rudder trims, I think the problem was not so big for cruising, as their rudders had been trimmed for cruising speed on the ground.

 

What about cross-winds then? You will have to use rudder then but perhaps that wasn't a problem. The LW wasn't called "fair weather air-force" without a reason.

[7.GShAP/Silas]

36 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

What about cross-winds then? You will have to use rudder then but perhaps that wasn't a problem. The LW wasn't called "fair weather air-force" without a reason.

 

 

Air forces become all-weather when their feet are in the fire.  It can't have been that bad because they still managed to perform.

[Ehret]

15 minutes ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

Air forces become all-weather when their feet are in the fire.  It can't have been that bad because they still managed to perform.

 

Like in the Bodenplatte which ended the LW as a coherent force?

 

It was that bad if not worse. However, this is a game after all which has to be enjoyable for all, so...

[LeLv76_Erkki]

How is rudder trim in any way critical in a crosswind landing or takeoff?

[Ehret]

2 minutes ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

How is rudder trim in any way critical in a crosswind landing or takeoff?

 

We are talking about long range cruising and how lack of certain features affects pilot stamina. But yes - even landing/take-off will be negatively affected; especially those gears...

[7.GShAP/Silas]

16 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

Like in the Bodenplatte which ended the LW as a coherent force?

 

It was that bad if not worse. However, this is a game after all which has to be enjoyable for all, so...

 

 

An operation that REQUIRED bad weather, enough to hamper the westerners but still allow the LW to carry out the mission given to it. 

 

Something tells me that crosswinds or whether they all flew 109s or rode dragons was secondary to a phonebook of other problems, like the fact that they were flying from a country that bore a strong resemblance to the grand canyon on a full-moon night and that the war was OVER.

Edited November 4, 2018 by 7.GShAP/Silas

[Ehret]

24 minutes ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

An operation that REQUIRED bad weather, enough to hamper the westerners but still allow the LW to carry out the mission given to it.

 

The extremely tight secrecy was the reason for the surprise of Allies; not bad weather, necessarily. The latter hampered the LW as well including the major shift of the Operation to January 1945. The former resulted in many LW causalities due to the friendly flak fire.

 

It's somewhat unfortunate that the Devs selected the Operation Bodenplatte for the next title, IMHO. There are some issues... the fact that the war was practically over is one of them. The other is availability of P-51Ds yet no B-17s to protect nor to be intercepted by 262s. Something like the Dieppe Raid could be better and without as many issues.

Edited November 4, 2018 by Ehret

[7.GShAP/Silas]

22 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

The extremely tight secrecy was the reason for the surprise of Allies; not bad weather, necessarily. The latter hampered the LW as well including the major shift of the Operation to January 1945. The former resulted in many LW causalities due to the friendly flak fire.

 

It's somewhat unfortunate that the Devs selected the Operation Bodenplatte for the next title, IMHO. There are some issues... the fact that the war was over is one of them. The other is availability of P-51Ds yet no B-17s to protect nor to be intercepted by 262s. Something like the Dieppe Raid could be better and without as many issues.

 

 

The planning for the operation demanded bad weather, period, for the sake of the ground forces in the face of an overwhelming western TAF presence.  A rather particular degree of bad weather that would hamper western operations(winning tends to make you conservative) but allow the LW to fly in support.  This rare species of weather did not hold out for long enough, but beggars cannot be choosers and the German military were two steps away from begging for a bullet in the head.

 

With your second point, you're right.  It will never, ever in a billion years be historically accurate because none of the limiting factors for the LW will be modelled nor will the many advantages of the westerners.  What it WILL be is relatively balanced from the standpoint of multiplayer(numbers will favor allies and aircraft will favor Germans I expect) , and it will sell well because most of the most famous western front airframes are present and accounted for.

 

EDIT:  Except for the campaigns the developers put out.  Those I'm sure will be accurate to the best of their ability with the tools available to them.

Edited November 4, 2018 by 7.GShAP/Silas

[Legioneod]

40 minutes ago, Ehret said:

It's somewhat unfortunate that the Devs selected the Operation Bodenplatte for the next title, IMHO. There are some issues... the fact that the war was practically over is one of them. The other is availability of P-51Ds yet no B-17s to protect nor to be intercepted by 262s. Something like the Dieppe Raid could be better and without as many issues.

 

Don't get hung up on the name, it spans from Market Garden to nearly the end of the war in Europe.

 

No B-17s or B-24s is fine because this has nothing to do with the 8th AAF, or did 9th AAF escort heavy bombers as well during this timeframe, I don't think they did since they were a tactical airforce?

We will still have medium bombers to escort and intercept and plenty of other things to do. There is no need for heavy bombers when you are representing the tactical side of things.

I would like to see heavies one day, but there is no need for them in Bodenplatte.

Edited November 4, 2018 by Legioneod

[ShamrockOneFive]

44 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

The extremely tight secrecy was the reason for the surprise of Allies; not bad weather, necessarily. The latter hampered the LW as well including the major shift of the Operation to January 1945. The former resulted in many LW causalities due to the friendly flak fire.

 

It's somewhat unfortunate that the Devs selected the Operation Bodenplatte for the next title, IMHO. There are some issues... the fact that the war was practically over is one of them. The other is availability of P-51Ds yet no B-17s to protect nor to be intercepted by 262s. Something like the Dieppe Raid could be better and without as many issues.

 

I recommend the following books if you feel like the war was over in September 1944:

https://www.amazon.com/2nd-Tactical-Air-Force-Vol/dp/1903223415

https://www.amazon.com/2nd-Tactical-Air-Force-Vol/dp/1903223601

https://www.amazon.com/Guns-Last-Light-1944-1945-Liberation/dp/1250037816/

 

Just a couple of examples...

 

P-51Ds were used extensively by the 9th Air Force as well... their job was not typically to escort the 8th's heavy bombers.

[LeLv76_Erkki]

1 hour ago, Ehret said:

 

We are talking about long range cruising and how lack of certain features affects pilot stamina. But yes - even landing/take-off will be negatively affected; especially those gears...

 

Spitfire has pretty much the same gears..

 

AFAIK 109s were usually trimmed to fly straight around 400 km/h IAS, and its not like its the only plane that doesnt have rudder trim adjustable in flight. I dont think its very critical because its not really mentioned in memoirs, it was similarly left out of so many fighters of the era and not having rudder trim is alright in flight sims too.

[Ehret]

49 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

Just a couple of examples...

 

It was over... H. made the Nazi regime nonnegotiable after atrocities they committed. They were losing everywhere at that moment  and were steadily burned to cinders. They couldn't hit back; especially the US - the allies resources and manufacturing powerhouse. Strategically, Germans lost at the Kuban; the very last chance to acquire the much needed oil fields of Caucasus. The rest of the war was to prolong lives of the Nazi leadership, basically. Pity, the normal Germans had to act as human shields for those nutters.

 

28 minutes ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

Spitfire has pretty much the same gears..

 

This topic is about the "American Iron".

Edited November 4, 2018 by Ehret

[Giovanni_Giorgio]

I guess if you can fly a 190 well, you can fly well a 47 or a 51.

[LeLv76_Erkki]

29 minutes ago, Ehret said:

This topic is about the "American Iron".

 

It is, not "why the 109 sucked".

 

3 minutes ago, hellmincer said:

I guess if you can fly a 190 well, you can fly well a 47 or a 51.

 

I think pilot has much more work in the P-47, with the manual rpm and turbo. But it'll be that much more rewarding to succeed in one

[ShamrockOneFive]

35 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

It was over... H. made the Nazi regime nonnegotiable after atrocities they committed. They were losing everywhere at that moment  and were steadily burned to cinders. They couldn't hit back; especially the US - the allies resources and manufacturing powerhouse. Strategically, Germans lost at the Kuban; the very last chance to acquire the much needed oil fields of Caucasus. The rest of the war was to prolong lives of the Nazi leadership, basically. Pity, the normal Germans had to act as human shields for those nutters.

 

I think a better word then maybe inevitable. It wasn't really over and Allied casualties actually climbed through the beginning of 1945. The fighting was intense and it was so in the air as well. The Luftwaffe indeed was on the back foot and it was well on its way to being finished having neither the strength nor experience that it had in 1942 and 1943. But it wasn't finished. Select almost any day from one of those 2nd TAF books and it's very clear that they were sortieing large numbers of aircraft to challenge the Allies on a near daily base.

 

I'm glad they picked this time period. The aircraft set is fantastic, the scenery will be impressive, and the action will certainly be intense. Not to say that it wouldn't be anywhere else but this far from a quiet period and while the inevitability of defeat loomed large for Germany, it was by no means done.

 

Bringing us back on topic, fielding the P-38, P-47 and P-51 in this series is certainly going to be a great moment for fans of American aircraft. That trio of aircraft is legendary.

Edited November 4, 2018 by ShamrockOneFive

[Ehret]

12 minutes ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

It is, not "why the 109 sucked".

 

The German leadership wasn't anticipating protracted hostilities; they thought that the 109 (plus Fw) is going to be enough. It'd be like the US had manufactured the P-40 exclusively for whole time. Sure, she would get improvements but they wouldn't change that she is not the P-51. Without the latter but only with the former, the Allied air-force would be stuck just like the LW which was mostly limited to tactical engagements. This is not a war winning strategy.

[Talon_]

50 minutes ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

I think pilot has much more work in the P-47, with the manual rpm and turbo. But it'll be that much more rewarding to succeed in one

 

You only need to worry about the turbo above critical altitude.

[Rattlesnake]

2 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

 

 

Bringing us back on topic, fielding the P-38, P-47 and P-51 in this series is certainly going to be a great moment for fans of American aircraft. That trio of aircraft is legendary.

Player population might double now that late war American stuff is added, no joke.

[ShamrockOneFive]

2 hours ago, CMBailey said:

Player population might double now that late war American stuff is added, no joke.

 

I believe it. Anecdotally I've seen comments that suggest that people will be buying Bodenplatte when its complete for the American aircraft. I wish they would check out the other scenarios and enjoy the sim for the fantastic WWII combat sim that it is but I understand that for some folks they really just want what they want and that's all there is. No judgement on my part for that. So Bodenplatte and anything else 1CGS can do in this scene featuring the Western Allies I'm sure will help draw people in - and maybe a few of them will find out that the East Front is pretty interesting too. IL-2: Forgotten Battles did that for me.

[Rjel]

33 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

I believe it. Anecdotally I've seen comments that suggest that people will be buying Bodenplatte when its complete for the American aircraft. I wish they would check out the other scenarios and enjoy the sim for the fantastic WWII combat sim that it is but I understand that for some folks they really just want what they want and that's all there is. No judgement on my part for that. So Bodenplatte and anything else 1CGS can do in this scene featuring the Western Allies I'm sure will help draw people in - and maybe a few of them will find out that the East Front is pretty interesting too. IL-2: Forgotten Battles did that for me.

It shouldn't be a surprise as we've had established members here say they wouldn't buy it or a Pacific themed scenario because of lack of interest in the timeframe, plane set or the map. 

[Aap]

9 hours ago, Ehret said:

The German leadership wasn't anticipating protracted hostilities; they thought that the 109 (plus Fw) is going to be enough. It'd be like the US had manufactured the P-40 exclusively for whole time. Sure, she would get improvements but they wouldn't change that she is not the P-51. Without the latter but only with the former, the Allied air-force would be stuck just like the LW which was mostly limited to tactical engagements. This is not a war winning strategy.

 

Picking a fight with countries that have 10 times larger industrial capacity and 100 times bigger access to some critical resources is not a war winning strategy. Even if Germany had had 1000 Mustangs in 1943, it would have changed nothing in the big picture. Also, strategic bombing did not win the war. It was more resource-expensive for allies than it was to Germany, but allies could afford it. When you start with ten times less resources and capacity, this kind of resource-expensive approach is not a way to win a war.

At the end of the day, war was won through tactical engagements. Once soviets reached Berlin, on the ground, the war was over. For Germany also, their impressive early victories came through tactical warfare. Even during Battle of Britain, it has been mentioned many times that the British were starting to have some serious problems when Luftwaffe concentrated on tactical bombing - air fields and other military installations - and was let out of this tight spot, when Germany stupidly switched focus to "strategic" bombing of cities. It would have been quite insane strategy to build an air force to bomb Soviet factories behind Ural mountains, not even to mention factories or cities in America. Only hope of winning the war against USSR was through tactical warfare and there never was any hope of winning the war against USA. 

Edited November 5, 2018 by II./JG77_Kemp

[Ehret]

7 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

Picking a fight with countries that have 10 times larger industrial capacity and 100 times bigger access to some critical resources is not a war winning strategy. Even if Germany had had 1000 Mustangs in 1943, it would have changed nothing in the big picture.

 

So... they were fools, basically. They lost even before they started but the mess they made... At the very end H. was still blaming German people that they "were not good enough for him!". A true sign of narcissist and usual results for one, too. Everything wouldn't be enough, not even 10K of P-51s, then.

[Porkins]

11 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

 

Picking a fight with countries that have 10 times larger industrial capacity and 100 times bigger access to some critical resources is not a war winning strategy. Even if Germany had had 1000 Mustangs in 1943, it would have changed nothing in the big picture. Also, strategic bombing did not win the war. It was more resource-expensive for allies than it was to Germany, but allies could afford it. When you start with ten times less resources and capacity, this kind of resource-expensive approach is not a way to win a war.

At the end of the day, war was won through tactical engagements. Once soviets reached Berlin, on the ground, the war was over. For Germany also, their impressive early victories came through tactical warfare. Even during Battle of Britain, it has been mentioned many times that the British were starting to have some serious problems when Luftwaffe concentrated on tactical bombing - air fields and other military installations - and was let out of this tight spot, when Germany stupidly switched focus to "strategic" bombing of cities. It would have been quite insane strategy to build an air force to bomb Soviet factories behind Ural mountains, not even to mention factories or cities in America. Only hope of winning the war against USSR was through tactical warfare and there never was any hope of winning the war against USA. 

I agree with a lot of what you write, but would recommend the recently published "The Most Dangerous Enemy" book of the Battle of Britain. The book supports a premise that has grown over the last decade that the British were never really in any serious danger of losing the BoB militarily. When you look at rate of aircraft production, kill ratios, and the tyranny of distance, the Luftwaffe was given a mission it probably had no chance of winning. The most dangerous enemy referenced in the book's title is actually the RAF, not the Luftwaffe. 

 

As for Bodenplatte, here's how it will go. I'll immediately jump in a P-38 because it's my favorite plane of all time. I'll then be disappointed that it doesn't turn as well as a single engine fighter. Then I'll tell myself that I need to "boom and zoom" with it. Then I'll remember that I hate boom and zoom and am bad at it. Finally, I'll start flying the Spitfire and spend my time not flying gazing lustfully at the P-38 in the game's main menu screen. 

Edited November 5, 2018 by Porkins

[357th_Dog]

Slightly OT..but..

The notion that the British were never really in danger of losing the BoB militarily is hogwash. At one point the RAF was down to less than 350 operational fighters..

[MiloMorai]

When would that be?

 

Sept 2 1940

[Ehret]

51 minutes ago, JohanLoton said:

The notion that the British were never really in danger of losing the BoB militarily is hogwash. At one point the RAF was down to less than 350 operational fighters..

 

The British could move assets north beyond range of the LW if the things gone really bad. Then they would restart fighters defense and bleed the LW of flying crews because the latter were flying over the enemy territory. Don't overlook distances - defenders have shorter turn-around times because they are local.

 

No... to crack the British LW would need the full strategical capability. Lack of heavy bombers was even more evident after Germans attacked Soviets. The latter just moved their factories east where they could be run safely.

[JtD]

5 minutes ago, Ehret said:

to crack the British LW would need the full strategical capability

 

And how exactly would a Luftwaffe with 'full strategic capability' crack the British?

[Aap]

1 hour ago, Porkins said:

The book supports a premise that has grown over the last decade that the British were never really in any serious danger of losing the BoB militarily. When you look at rate of aircraft production, kill ratios, and the tyranny of distance, the Luftwaffe was given a mission it probably had no chance of winning.

 

Yes and more importantly, even if Luftwaffe would have achieved clear victory in the (air) Battle of Britain, the British were never really in any serious danger of being invaded. The entire battle was a poker game bluff to get the British to sign for peace. Both Lützow and Mölders wrote in their notes already at the time that the operation did not seem real. There were no troop concentrations or piling up supplies or any kind of real preparations for the possible invasion. The activities were just to make it appear to Brits that the invasion was possible, hoping that the fear of that possibility plus the submarine blockade would make the British to just pick the easier and safer option and make peace with Germany.

Anyway, I guess it is time to let the thread get back to it's original topic - American iron.

[Porkins]

1 hour ago, JohanLoton said:

Slightly OT..but..

The notion that the British were never really in danger of losing the BoB militarily is hogwash. At one point the RAF was down to less than 350 operational fighters..

Again, check out The Most Dangerous Enemy. It's a really good read no matter how you slice it, but the author goes to great pains to make his case through statistical analysis and presents a very compelling argument. Not to say that things weren't desperate during certain moments of the BoB, or that the British were anything less than heroic during this period, but that from a military standpoint, the Luftwaffe simply was never strong enough to beat the RAF on their home turf. 

Edited November 5, 2018 by Porkins

[Ehret]

43 minutes ago, JtD said:

And how exactly would a Luftwaffe with 'full strategic capability' crack the British?

 

By burning all British assets which they couldn't do because LW didn't have heavy long-ranged bombers. Just like LW failed at inflicting damage to Soviet moved factories.

[Kurfurst]

1 hour ago, JtD said:

 

And how exactly would a Luftwaffe with 'full strategic capability' crack the British?

 

By the same way the Bomber Commad cracked the Germans... oh wait they didn’t and proved  to be a massive waste of manpower, technology and (scarce) British resources. 

 

16 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

By burning all British assets which they couldn't do because LW didn't have heavy long-ranged bombers. Just like LW failed at inflicting damage to Soviet moved factories.

 

In fact contrary of what you think they did have the largest and most advanced strategic bomber force at the time and did waged a strategic bombing on British assets - it just turned out that strategic bombing was not nearly as effectice as people believed prior to the war.

 

No target in Britain was out of the range of He 111s or Ju 88s.

 

No operational bomber (bar perhaps the B29) of World War II had the range to reach the moved Russian industries beyond the Urals with an effective bombload. Distances were simply to vast.

Edited November 5, 2018 by VO101Kurfurst

[Psyrion]

I thought this was a thread about american planes?

I´m looking forward to the P-38, P-47 and P-51. I guess all of them
Will be nice to have new toys again.

[Ehret]

28 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

By the same way the Bomber Commad cracked the Germans... oh wait they didn’t and proved  to be a massive waste of manpower, technology and (scarce) British resources.

 

Actually, German countermeasures proved to be a massive waste of manpower, technology and even scarcer resources. How many flak rounds were used to shot down just a single bomber? 10K?

You are overlooking secondary effects of mass bombings. Ask Speer how he liked them;

he had to allocate +200K workers permanently just to keep repairing plants. Then, the human factors... people living in constant risk with no safe places anymore. It hurt hard, thought might be difficult to quantify.

 

Finally - the bombings plus escort fighters put LW in the catch-22: If they chosen to intercept heavies, they were easy targets for escorts. If they chosen to fight for air-supremacy, the bombers would run unopposed. They chose the former; stopping bombers was deemed more important for Germans.

[DD_Arthur]

54 minutes ago, Psyrion said:

I´m looking forward to the P-38, P-47 and P-51. I guess all of them
Will be nice to have new toys again.

 

Agreed.  The P-47 and P-38 are the planes that really interest me in Bodenplatte. 

 

We're getting the P-38J now, I believe.  Will the pilot workload - or rather engine management be similar to the P-47?