Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
=X51=VC_

20mm option on 109K-4?

Recommended Posts

I know it was uncommon but it was certainly possible and I believe fitted in some cases. Any chance we can get the MG151/20 replacing the MK108 in the nose as a modification on the Bf 109K-4?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know nobody has ever found evidence of this actually happening. The eletronics are similar and someone probably could have swapped them out if they wanted to, but there's no evidence any K4s had a 20mm installed centreline

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like a bit of variety between different 109 models in game. If K4 gets 20mm what makes u choose a G14 over K4 in multiplayer if both are available. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mollotin said:

I like a bit of variety between different 109 models in game. If K4 gets 20mm what makes u choose a G14 over K4 in multiplayer if both are available. 

K4 is far faster than a G14 so that would be the reason. I guess some people that have not very good shoting finds better the 20mm since they have more fire time. 

What I dont like is why there is no ammo counter on the K4. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, E69_geramos109 said:

K4 is far faster than a G14 so that would be the reason. I guess some people that have not very good shoting finds better the 20mm since they have more fire time. 

What I dont like is why there is no ammo counter on the K4. 

K 4 is faster, that is why i asked why would anyone choose a G 14 if K 4 gets the 20mm too. 20mm is better gun than 30mm, so then the k4 would be better in every aspect that matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mollotin said:

K 4 is faster, that is why i asked why would anyone choose a G 14 if K 4 gets the 20mm too. 20mm is better gun than 30mm, so then the k4 would be better in every aspect that matters.

G14 is probably a better fighter if you have to mix it.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 20mm cannon had different hardware setup than the 30mm cannon:

a. 20mm has its ammo stored in the left wing, below the cockpit, the 30mm's ammo is in the nose;

b. 30mm is operated by pressurized bottles stored behind and below the cockpit, 20mm didn't have those bottles;

 

By the looks of it, swapping the two was not an easy task if it was possible, and if it was ever done, don't think it was on a large scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, =X51=VC_ said:

I know it was uncommon but it was certainly possible and I believe fitted in some cases. Any chance we can get the MG151/20 replacing the MK108 in the nose as a modification on the Bf 109K-4?

 

Unlikely. AFAIK not even historically possible, nor have I ever read about that option in any book I own. G10 would be the next best thing to have that in the game. You´ll need to wait if we get a late eastern front module. Then they might integrate the G10 there.

 

I agree, the 20mm ist the better gun if you are after enemy fighters. 30mm is good for bombers, that was why they introduced it in the first place.

Edited by sevenless
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

G14 is probably a better fighter if you have to mix it.

 

Really don't understand how folks get to this conclusion. G14 is 97% the weight of the K4, yet K4 is a far cleaner machine aerodynamically and with more power to boot. 

Edited by Bilbo_Baggins
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, =X51=VC_ said:

I know it was uncommon but it was certainly possible and I believe fitted in some cases. Any chance we can get the MG151/20 replacing the MK108 in the nose as a modification on the Bf 109K-4?

Why. Isn't the 30mm doing it for you. I think its awesome.

 

2 minutes ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

 

Really don't understand why this is always repeated. G14 is 97% the weight of the K4, yet K4 is vastly less draggy and with more power. 

G14 has a non-retractable tail wheel. And it is quite large, probably designed for rough conditions.

 

Also the K4 had numerous aerodynamic refinements and weight savings I believe. I thinks some metal had been replaced with wood or vice versa to reduce weight.

 

A post war study of captured examples of late war aircraft found that it was difficult to determine what the standard spec was for many types and variants, as many were transitional production models, had used cannibalized parts and field modifications. Also the dispersion and disruption of aircraft production due to allied bombing meant aircraft were produced from whatever was to hand even if it didn't fit the specification. Lots of parts like instruments, radios, guns etc were simply missing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

 

Really don't understand how folks get to this conclusion. G14 is 97% the weight of the K4, yet K4 is a far cleaner machine aerodynamically and with more power to boot. 

 

I think it comes from IL-2: 1946 where the G-14 turned more tightly and the K-4 often felt fast but with concrete control surfaces. The K-4 in this iteration of the sim is much closer in handling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, =621=Samikatz said:

As far as I know nobody has ever found evidence of this actually happening. The eletronics are similar and someone probably could have swapped them out if they wanted to, but there's no evidence any K4s had a 20mm installed centreline

 

If that's the case than that's fine. I don't know why I thought it was done, maybe some sources just make assumptions.

 

2 hours ago, E69_geramos109 said:

I guess some people that have not very good shoting finds better the 20mm since they have more fire time.

 

That's a really short sighted statement. Someone who can aim well will still be able to find more firing opportunities with the 20mm gun because it has higher muzzle velocity and much better ballistics.

 

1 hour ago, Raven109 said:

The 20mm cannon had different hardware setup than the 30mm cannon:

a. 20mm has its ammo stored in the left wing, below the cockpit, the 30mm's ammo is in the nose;

b. 30mm is operated by pressurized bottles stored behind and below the cockpit, 20mm didn't have those bottles;

 

By the looks of it, swapping the two was not an easy task if it was possible, and if it was ever done, don't think it was on a large scale.

 

That's interesting that they were so different, and that the G airframes could be fitted for both but then the K was not backwards compatible with the 20mm.

 

42 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

Unlikely. AFAIK not even historically possible, nor have I ever read about that option in any book I own. G10 would be the next best thing to have that in the game. You´ll need to wait if we get a late eastern front module. Then they might integrate the G10 there.

 

I agree, the 20mm ist the better gun if you are after enemy fighters. 30mm is good for bombers, that was why they introduced it in the first place.

 

I would love a G-10, much more "the ultimate 109" in my opinion that the over-specialised K-4. In the meantime I still prefer the G-14.

 

38 minutes ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

 

Really don't understand how folks get to this conclusion. G14 is 97% the weight of the K4, yet K4 is a far cleaner machine aerodynamically and with more power to boot. 

 

Because with 605DB the K-4 doesn't have more power, and the lightness is felt in climb and handling. People make the same arguments with F-4 vs G-2, weight difference is about the same but most people prefer the F-4 for dogfighting. The K-4 in IL2 handles like a pig, sluggish in all axes and easy to stall. With 605DC the K-4 has a power advantage but it feels like a one-trick pony in how you can use that power. The aerodynamics only really come into play at higher speeds and for max top speed, but at typical dogfighting speeds G-14 has similar climb and acceleration and is still more versatile, more comfortable and more capable dogfighter in my opinion. The fact that K-4 is limited to the 30mm is just one more nail in the coffin for me (and the revised instrument panel is really annoying).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

 

Really don't understand how folks get to this conclusion. G14 is 97% the weight of the K4, yet K4 is a far cleaner machine aerodynamically and with more power to boot. 

Because that's the reality of the situation. In IL2 BoBp the G-14 has more favorable low speed handling characteristics, a better sustained turn, and an all round lighter feel. The K-4 feels quite boaty at lower speeds when stacked up against the G-14. This conclusion is not reached through something as petty as logic, its simply how the simulation models these two aircraft. 

 

As a note, I haven't directly tested their compared performance in a while, but soon after they both released, I did a lot of testing with the turn and found the G-14 to be the victor by a decent margin. Everything else goes to the K-4. 

Edited by QB.Shallot
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One prototype is known to have a 20 mm cannon fitted. That's it. There is zero published evidence that any more K-series planes were fitted with such an armament. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mollotin said:

K 4 is faster, that is why i asked why would anyone choose a G 14 if K 4 gets the 20mm too. 20mm is better gun than 30mm, so then the k4 would be better in every aspect that matters.

G14 was produced before the K4 so on some campaign, mission etc the K4 does not fit with the timeframe and the G14 does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, =X51=VC_ said:

That's interesting that they were so different, and that the G airframes could be fitted for both but then the K was not backwards compatible with the 20mm.

 

They probably could with some difficulty, but I don't think it was an easy modification done in the field. It was more a thing that was decided from the factory. Even if it was simple, as I said, there weren't many Ks going around with 20mms. By the end of the war, Germany was very concerned with bomber attacks. There is also a K mod with 30mm in the wings, for even more firepower against heavy non-maneuvering targets. So having 20mm on K4 would be against doctrine, and your commanding officer will not be very happy with you.

Edited by Raven109

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =X51=VC_ said:

 

That's a really short sighted statement. Someone who can aim well will still be able to find more firing opportunities with the 20mm gun because it has higher muzzle velocity and much better ballistics.

Sure there are more reasons for someone to preffer the 20mm. I just pointed out that reason because from my experience with the people I fly this is the usual reason why they preffer the 20. For people that shot very well they just dont find that difficult to adapt to the 30 ballistics (is not that terrible) and they use to like that consistency for killing on multiplayer that the 20 is not giving you taking in mind the net code. Exceptions to that? For sure there are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Raven109 said:

 

They probably could with some difficulty, but I don't think it was an easy modification done in the field. It was more a thing that was decided from the factory. Even if it was simple, as I said, there weren't many Ks going around with 20mms. By the end of the war, Germany was very concerned with bomber attacks. There is also a K mod with 30mm in the wings, for even more firepower against heavy non-maneuvering targets. So having 20mm on K4 would be against doctrine, and your commanding officer will not be very happy with you.

 

But adding 30mm to Gs that were built with 20mm was a field mod, so I do find it a little strange that the reverse was so difficult to do technically, regardless of doctrine.

 

1 hour ago, E69_geramos109 said:

Sure there are more reasons for someone to preffer the 20mm. I just pointed out that reason because from my experience with the people I fly this is the usual reason why they preffer the 20. For people that shot very well they just dont find that difficult to adapt to the 30 ballistics (is not that terrible) and they use to like that consistency for killing on multiplayer that the 20 is not giving you taking in mind the net code. Exceptions to that? For sure there are. 

 

Yeah, and I'll admit it's one of the reasons I use it as well. With 20mm my best performance is about 50 rounds fired per kill, which realistically means enough ammo for 2 or 3 kills (4 if really lucky). But I can hit at 200m reliably if I need to, 30mm can't do that and it's not worth trying for waste of ammo. It's not always possible to get in that perfect 100m firing position, but the ability to spray a little on sub-optimal or long-range shots can get you some hits early which can win a fight in the long term. It's just more comfortable and flexible, not having to worry about ammo or getting a perfect shot every time.

 

Before the damage model update when German 20mm hit like wet paper I would agree the 30mm was worth it, but now the 20mm is so devastating anyway I feel no need for an upgrade against a fighter. But your point about netcode doesn't make sense. If netcode says "sorry that hit didn't happen" surely it's better to waste one of 200 shells not one of 65.

Edited by =X51=VC_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =X51=VC_ said:

But adding 30mm to Gs that were built with 20mm was a field mod, so I do find it a little strange that the reverse was so difficult to do technically, regardless of doctrine.

 

Well, yes, but the devs are trying to simulate (so far) the most produced/used variants of the aircraft. Since there isn't much info about how many there were (I know that not many, LukeFF is saying that just one), then it makes sense, according to the trend, that it's not simulated.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =X51=VC_ said:

But adding 30mm to Gs that were built with 20mm was a field mod, so I do find it a little strange that the reverse was so difficult to do technically, regardless of doctrine.

 

It wasn't a field mod: they came from the factory with either a 20 mm or 30 mm cannon and stayed that way for the duration of their service life. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were no K-4 using 20mm as the central cannon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, =621=Samikatz said:

As far as I know nobody has ever found evidence of this actually happening. The eletronics are similar and someone probably could have swapped them out if they wanted to, but there's no evidence any K4s had a 20mm installed centreline

I am into mission making now and I recently purchased JG 26 Luftwaffe Fighter Wing War Diary, Volume Two: 1943-45 to make authentic missions, I read that III./JG26 in Autumn of 44/spring 45 swapped out their 30mm's for 20mm in there 109s because the 20mm was adequate to bring down fighters which was their most common adversaries in 44 and 45. It was Goering's idea to equip every Luftwaffe aircraft with a 30mm in the west as according to him, bombers where top priority. On the battle field, Luftwaffe HQ groups called the shots on aircraft tasking and not the RLM.

 

III./JG26 did a lot of anti jabo (anti fighter bombers missions) and more frequently ran into P-47s, Typhoons and Tempest than Spitfires and P-51s.

Edited by JG7_X-Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

I am into mission making now and I recently purchased JG 26 Luftwaffe Fighter Wing War Diary, Volume Two: 1943-45 to make authentic missions, I read that III./JG26 in Autumn of 44/spring 45 swapped out their 30mm's for 20mm in there 109s because the 20mm was adequate to bring down fighters which was their most common adversaries in 44 and 45. It was Goering's idea to equip every Luftwaffe aircraft with a 30mm in the west as according to him, bombers where top priority. On the battle field, Luftwaffe HQ groups called the shots on aircraft tasking and not the RLM.

 

III./JG26 did a lot of anti jabo (anti fighter bombers missions) and more frequently ran into P-47s, Typhoons and Tempest than Spitfires and P-51s.

 

I have these books in both hardbacks and soft... Do you know which pages that info can be found, I'm going to look anyway... Interesting. 

 

Ok... On page 379 it says that the K-4's came as gunboats with underwing 20mm's and the pilot's didn't like that setup. Nothing yet about swapping the 30mm out. 

Edited by Rodwonder
more info...
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

III./JG26 in Autumn of 44/spring 45 swapped out their 30mm's for 20mm in there 109s because the 20mm was adequate to bring down fighters which was their most common adversaries in 44 and 45.

 

What? No, that is just crazy talk. For one thing, you couldn't just swap out the 30mm for the 20mm cannon, and they also started taking on K-4s near the end of the year. 

 

It pains me to say it, but this book is unfortunately just another example of lazy research work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

 It was Goering's idea to equip every Luftwaffe aircraft with a 30mm in the west as according to him, bombers where top priority. On the battle field, Luftwaffe HQ groups called the shots on aircraft tasking and not the RLM.

 

III./JG26 did a lot of anti jabo (anti fighter bombers missions) and more frequently ran into P-47s, Typhoons and Tempest than Spitfires and P-51s.

This is probably one of the few times Goering was right.

 

Bombers should always be the priority. They were the priority during the battle of Britain for the same reason. Bombers were attacking 11 Group's airfields and, latterly London, and had to be stopped or Fighter Command would have had to pull out and relocate above an East/West line drawn through Oxford.

 

And in game, it's why you get 2000 Rubles for a bomber kill and only half that for a fighter.

 

If LW fighter pilots were seeking only to engage other fighters, then discipline had also broken down as well as logistics and training.

 

However, if they opted to engage in anti-jabo sorties, that is understandable. They were simply protecting their Heer comrades, as they were originally created to do, even if it is only a forlorn hope by 1944/45

Edited by Reggie_Mental

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm satisfied the 20mm option would not be realistic on the K-4.

 

But that just leaves me wishing more and more for a G-10! 😝

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually there are reputable sources that mention that 20mm cannon was installed in K-4s.

 

Prien & Rodeike mention that there were K-4s which were delivered with MG151/20 instead of the Mk108 (Messerschmitt Bf 109 F, G,K Series: an Illustrated Study p.174). Janda's & Poruba's Messerschmitt Bf 109K by JaPo mentions that wiring for the MG151/20 was prepared by Messerschmitt for the Bf109K in case Rheinmetall-Borsig couldn't deliver enough MK108s on time. That way Bf109K-4 production wouldn't get halted due to lack of cannons and MG151/20s could be installed instead.

 

The exact number of K-4s with Mauser installed, like lot of Luftwaffe late war production figures among other things, to my knowledge remains unknown as Luftwaffe's documentation/book keeping was largely destroyed/became missing at the end of the war.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The K-4 had MK 108 motor cannon as default, there are only two aircraft that may be exceptions. Both were test machines, and are not representative of serial production. One is a supposed to be a K-2 WNr. 600056, this was sent to Tarnetwitz weapon testing station, the other is an early production aircraft (note that the earliest production were typically used for various in-house and LW trials only) Wnr. 330112, also for Tarnewitz. That is all. 

 

There simply wasn't an MG 151/20 armed serial production K-4. That would have been the K-2, but it was never serially produced. It is not a coincidence, that they 'started' the K series production by jumping to '4' already. Its called a K-4 for the very reason it has MK 108 as the default and only option.

 

The K-2 that would have been the MG 151 version and was allocated the WNr. 6xx xxx serial numbers, the K-4 the MK 108 version. However the K-2 was eventually canceled in the spring of 1944 and instead the G-10 took its place  and its assigned serial blocks. This way Regensburg could switch to K airframes while the others could keep producing hybrid G/K airframes (G airframe, K internals) without production loss. 

 

The designation system in the LW had a strict logic behind them. Letters indicated the airframe type and the numbers the equipment state (including engine, radio equipment, weapons).

If you changed some equipment in the aircraft, the designation would change. All other weapon variables would have had different designation, but these were all canceled or were not proceeded with.  Hence the K-4 designation always means a K series airframe, and the -4 indicated the DB 605D engine, two MG 131 and 1 MK 108, basic FuG 16ZY radio set etc.

 

Its like this in all official listing for the K-4, no expections.

 

Besides the K-2, there were other planned, but never materialized versions. The K-6 would have been a heavily armed and armored heavy fighter variant (3 MK 108s, two of them inside the wings + 2 x MG 131, also tripled the armor weight), but with the same DB 605D engine; K-8/10 were either recon variants or with a potent MK 103mot, but it keeps getting mixed even in the original papers. K-14 would have been the same style heavy fighter as the K-6 but with a super high altitude two staged DB 605L; this latter was a backup project for the Ta 152 and was canceled in late 1944 since the Ta was proceeding well. But like the K-2, neither these were produced. You will have to wait for a G-10 expansion for an MG 151/20 armed one, or a G-6/ASM or G-14/AS if it makes it to BoN, since its pretty much the same thing as the G-10 for practical purposes.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

What? No, that is just crazy talk. For one thing, you couldn't just swap out the 30mm for the 20mm cannon, and they also started taking on K-4s near the end of the year. 

 

It pains me to say it, but this book is unfortunately just another example of lazy research work. 

 

LukeFF -  I know you know your stuff but can we agree that that Donald Caldwell and Peter Rodeike know their stuff too?

6 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

The K-4 had MK 108 motor cannon as default, there are only two aircraft that may be exceptions. Both were test machines, and are not representative of serial production. One is a supposed to be a K-2 WNr. 600056, this was sent to Tarnetwitz weapon testing station, the other is an early production aircraft (note that the earliest production were typically used for various in-house and LW trials only) Wnr. 330112, also for Tarnewitz. That is all. 

 

There simply wasn't an MG 151/20 armed serial production K-4. That would have been the K-2, but it was never serially produced. It is not a coincidence, that they 'started' the K series production by jumping to '4' already. Its called a K-4 for the very reason it has MK 108 as the default and only option.

 

The K-2 that would have been the MG 151 version and was allocated the WNr. 6xx xxx serial numbers, the K-4 the MK 108 version. However the K-2 was eventually canceled in the spring of 1944 and instead the G-10 took its place  and its assigned serial blocks. This way Regensburg could switch to K airframes while the others could keep producing hybrid G/K airframes (G airframe, K internals) without production loss. 

 

The designation system in the LW had a strict logic behind them. Letters indicated the airframe type and the numbers the equipment state (including engine, radio equipment, weapons).

If you changed some equipment in the aircraft, the designation would change. All other weapon variables would have had different designation, but these were all canceled or were not proceeded with.  Hence the K-4 designation always means a K series airframe, and the -4 indicated the DB 605D engine, two MG 131 and 1 MK 108, basic FuG 16ZY radio set etc.

 

Its like this in all official listing for the K-4, no expections.

 

Besides the K-2, there were other planned, but never materialized versions. The K-6 would have been a heavily armed and armored heavy fighter variant (3 MK 108s, two of them inside the wings + 2 x MG 131, also tripled the armor weight), but with the same DB 605D engine; K-8/10 were either recon variants or with a potent MK 103mot, but it keeps getting mixed even in the original papers. K-14 would have been the same style heavy fighter as the K-6 but with a super high altitude two staged DB 605L; this latter was a backup project for the Ta 152 and was canceled in late 1944 since the Ta was proceeding well. But like the K-2, neither these were produced. You will have to wait for a G-10 expansion for an MG 151/20 armed one, or a G-6/ASM or G-14/AS if it makes it to BoN, since its pretty much the same thing as the G-10 for practical purposes.

 

Very good research dude! I think some came with the 103 correct - I might be wrong? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

or a G-6/ASM or G-14/AS if it makes it to BoN, since its pretty much the same thing as the G-10 for practical purposes.

 

Not really. A G-10 would have access to the DB 605DC, 2000 HP on G airframe weight, while any ASM engine variant will have less power than the current G-14 at most typical fighting altitudes in IL2.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am no Luftwaffe WWII fighter pilot but when I read where they called the G-10 a dog-fighter, I am envisioning a cross b/w the K-4 (speed) and the F-4 (agility).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

Very good research dude! I think some came with the 103 correct - I might be wrong? 


K-4 is only listed with the MK 108. 

 

The K-10 was supposed to be the variant with the Mk 103mot (a slightly modified mk103 variant, for which some drawings exist, i believe it was streamlined in the barrel-receiver area to fit into an engine cannon installation), but it was not built, only a rough project drawing indicates its planned existence. In any case, 109  further development was dropped altogether in March 1945 in favor of jets (which was in any case a highly optimistic assumption).

 

The MK 108 and MG 151 had slightly different installation. The MG 151 had its ammo box in the port wing root, the MK 108 had it right above the cannon, in the fusalage. Not impossible to do, as its still a 109, and you probably have the space in the wing, but its not a simple  ‘field swap’, you probably need done this in the factory as a conversion, with gun, ammo box mountsX 
 

Note that MK 108 109Gs were designated officially as /U4 and listed as such in every case, signifying that they were significant modifications. They were a different series than the rest of them standard MG 151 armed variants. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Reggie_Mental said:

This is probably one of the few times Goering was right. (I will have to disagree with you - politely of course. The Luftwaffe did not not have enough men nor equipment to make a dent in halting the USAAF's daylight bombing campaign. 500+ aircraft raids and 1000+ aircraft raids almost daily is like killing mosquito - as that's all you are doing and not making a dent in their population). Goering was a yes man and without any military training in strategy - he was useless as a leader. There is no way anyone can blame the Luftwafe pilots for cowardice, which he did on many occasions.

 

Bombers should always be the priority. They were the priority during the battle of Britain for the same reason. Bombers were attacking 11 Group's airfields and, latterly London, and had to be stopped or Fighter Command would have had to pull out and relocate above an East/West line drawn through Oxford. (in 1944 - USAAF daylight bombing raids were to slowdown German manufacturing - which it did not do, despite the tonnage of bombs dropped (look at production #s of German aircraft and tanks during that period). However, what the daylight raid did accomplish was an unintended result - the utter destruction of the the Luftwaffe. Drones of allied bombers and then with fighter escort later always drew the Luftwaffe up to get slaughtered (the reason why is another conversation ;)). The decision to switch from airfield to London in 1940 was a tad different.

 

And in game, it's why you get 2000 Rubles for a bomber kill and only half that for a fighter.

 

If LW fighter pilots were seeking only to engage other fighters, then discipline had also broken down as well as logistics and training. Note: I mention III./JG26 (which is made up of the staffles (squadrons - and not the entire LW)). III./JG26's role was to engage fighters while I./JG26 and II./JG26 who flew Fw 190s, focused on the bombers. This was in theory anyway. The training short falls you speak of were as a result of the losses b/w the engagement of of the USAAF b/w June '43 and Autumn '44. Logistics was not an issue until until 2nd TAF and 9th USAAF Airforce started going after ground transportation (trains, convoys and other ground targets of opportunity). It was these missions the 109 was very good at thus tasked by fighter group headquarters (lead by Adolf Galland). Just know whenever there was a disagreement b/w Galland and Georing (..and there were many), just assume Galland was right.

 

However, if they opted to engage in anti-jabo sorties, that is understandable. They were simply protecting their Heer comrades, as they were originally created to do, even if it is only a forlorn hope by 1944/45 Using aircraft for mission they are best suited for is just good common sense!

 

Edited by JG7_X-Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =X51=VC_ said:

 

Not really. A G-10 would have access to the DB 605DC, 2000 HP on G airframe weight, while any ASM engine variant will have less power than the current G-14 at most typical fighting altitudes in IL2.


True for the ASM, but for Late /AS (cc 1945) appears to have been equipped with ASB/ASC series engines with the same output as the DB/DC. The ASB/ASC appears to be some kind of A/D series hybrid (upgraded A series engine blocks with D series parts?) as shown by the K-4 like oil system bulges on the lower cowling chin of late G14/AS.
 

note - DB and DC is simply a marking coming into use in the end of 1944 for different boost used for the SAME 605 D series engine. In other words there is only DB 605D which received different subdesignations (mainly for the groundcrew’s information) during its development as max boost went from 1,75, 1,8, and 1,98.

 

You could  simply ‘convert’ one into the other (i.e. DB into a DC and vica versa) by a few tenths of mm adjustment in the fuel flow valve, and of course increase the manifold pressure settings (plus of course use the correct spark plugs and fuel). This itself  probably takes an hour or two for the crew in the field because you need to remove the supercharger assembly to access the said fuel flow screw, as I have been told by an actual 109 mechanic. 
 

So it you consider that in the winter months many Ks had their wheel well covers removed and operated with fixed tailwheels, natural performance variance in between serial production place, there was a marginal difference in performance between late G-14/AS, G-10 and K-4. They all had the same supercharger, same ratings and roughly the same aerodynamics. Thats also logical as the /AS was just a step in until the improved 605D could be produced, and the G-10 was brought alive by the desire that factories would not have to retool for K airframe production, as the K different in many small details from the G airframe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@VO101Kurfurst that's interesting, I was not aware of such a thing as ASB/ASC engines with increased output. I thought the chin bulges on late G-14/AS was just to simplify manufacture, only make one kind of lower cowl for all /AS, G-10 and K-4. I know in reality there were a lot of small changes that could be made to basically turn one version into effectively the other, and there were so many with so much variation in production anyway that they are equivalent. But in the sim any implementation would likely pick known, factory fresh conditions and would exaggerate very small differences in performance because of the virtual environment we fly in.

 

For me the other difference is weight. I know it's only a few % but in IL2 the K-4 feels heavy and sluggish compared to the G-14. I would expect any /AS or G-10 to handle more similarly to a G-6/-14 (but obviously not as well as an F-4, sorry @JG7_X-Man 😝 ). This seems to be quite specific to IL2, in DCS their 109K-4 is super agile, to be honest that feels like the F-4 does in IL2.

 

Aerodynamics are of course also important, the G-14 is a bit slow for the opponents it faces, but for me not at the cost of low altitude power, that would be the result of any basic ASM version we get. 109s live and die by their acceleration and climb rate.

Edited by =X51=VC_
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, =X51=VC_ said:

 I thought the chin bulges on late G-14/AS was just to simplify manufacture, only make one kind of lower cowl for all /AS, G-10 and K-4.

 

Yep it is not that easy:

 

 

AS_K4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

Yep it is not that easy:

 

 

AS_K4.jpg

 

And then later on you have G-14/AS with large oil tank, radiator or chin bulges, or any combination for no reason other than factory availability, but same ASM engine. 😅 Late version 109s are a real mess, I've studied the visual differences a lot for the purpose of building scale models.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, =X51=VC_ said:

 

And then later on you have G-14/AS with large oil tank, radiator or chin bulges, or any combination for no reason other than factory availability, but same ASM engine. 😅 Late version 109s are a real mess, I've studied the visual differences a lot for the purpose of building scale models.

 

Yes, we went through this already in this thread. You need to have close to a PhD to identify/keep apart the late war 109 14/AS, G10, Erla, WMF, MTT bunch.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...