FW-190 F8 question of armament

[esk_pedja]

Question of F8 armament:

Is there any way (tip) how to get rid of two external cannons on wings, i.e. to remain only with two "internal" wing canons... like A5 ?

 

Against light fighters I do not need all that firepower... but these two canons decrease handling performance in dogfight.

( I know that F8 is not intended for dogfighting... ) 

 

Any tip ?

 

Edited July 18, 2020 by esk_pedja

[LukeFF]

Only with the F-8 mod. 

[Avimimus]

You have to carry more armour... You can also delete the Mg-131 from the Sturmjager or F-8/G-8 configurations...

In the latter case (F8/G8) the result is about 10 kg lighter, but fowling from the under-wing bomb-racks will probably reduce speed.

In the former case (Sturmjager) you'll end up about the same weight but with more armour (and presumably a greater concentration of mass near the center - which should, in theory, increase role rates.

 

There are historical accounts (posted a month or two ago) of pilots flying with just 2x20mm cannons - and even one who stripped down to only have the 13mm cannons... so it was done. However, these are unofficial field mods and fairly rare.

 

I always thought that the devs could produce lightened 'reduced armament' collector planes for 4-5 of our existing aircraft... this would provide revenue and would require almost no additional work!

[FTC_DerSheriff]

Not effectively possible in the a-8

[esk_pedja]

- What mod / mods ? Never heard of them...?!?

 

- I would kindly ask devs to include that option in the new patch, if it doesn't take too many re-calculations... it should be real refreshment!  ( as I know how FW-190 is popular ) 

 

[Bremspropeller]

It would be cool to have BoN have more options for the A-8, e.g.

 

No Erhöhte Notleistung, removal of the outer 20mm guns,use of the Erla Rack instead of the ETC501 and a late canopy for the A/F/G-8.

 

It is a modular airframe...

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

They could and were removed, even on earlier marks of Anton. Kuhlmey´s 190´s had their outer guns removed, they used both A-7 and F-8.

[Eisenfaustus]

How useful would that actually be?

 

If I think about my experience with the a3/5 - removing the outer guns doesn’t reduce drag, just weight. But only marginal - thus top speed, acceleration, turnrate and climb rate should improve marginally as well. I never noticed these slight improvements in combat though. After removal I couldn’t outrun, outclimb or outrun any opponent I couldn’t before. 
 

The increased rollrate is noticeably though. But with the guns the 190 rollrate still is awesome and I seldom use it to it’s full extent- except for the wildest defensive manoeuvres. And for those even the unreduced rollrate is good enough. 
 

would that be different in the bobp/Bon environment?

 

honest question. 

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

The roll rate of 190A/D is still worse than of the La-5F/FN. In game.

[Bremspropeller]

5 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

would that be different in the bobp/Bon environment?

 

Some A-7s and A-8s had their outer guns removed in the Normandy theater.

 

TBH: You'll be in dire need of any incremental performance-boost you can get your hands on in early '44.

[esk_pedja]

31 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

The increased rollrate is noticeably though. But with the guns the 190 rollrate still is awesome and I seldom use it to it’s full extent- except for the wildest defensive manoeuvres. And for those even the unreduced rollrate is good enough. 
 

would that be different in the bobp/Bon environment?

 

honest question. 

 

Against a "jug" probably not, but against Spit MkIX  - it does make a difference... also against Mustang.

In addition - it would make a plane faster... 

Edited July 19, 2020 by esk_pedja

[Eisenfaustus]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

Some A-7s and A-8s had their outer guns removed in the Normandy theater.

Twas done so should be available - reasonable. 

 

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

TBH: You'll be in dire need of any incremental performance-boost you can get your hands on in early '44.

I get that sentiment but I think these very minor improvements don‘t outweigh the substantial loss of firepower as that‘s what could turn the one Snapshot you might have against superior allied a/c a killing blow. 

 

1 hour ago, esk_pedja said:

 

Against a "jug" probably not, but against Spit MkIX  - it does make a difference... also against Mustang.

In addition - it would make a plane faster... 

Against a mustang? What could you do against a mustang that you couldn’t do before? 100oc Spit IX is similar enough In speed that it might make a difference - but the mustang outeverythings the a8 with ease except for firepower. And that won’t change a bit without the outer guns. 

[Avimimus]

3 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

How useful would that actually be?

 

If I think about my experience with the a3/5 - removing the outer guns doesn’t reduce drag, just weight. But only marginal - thus top speed, acceleration, turnrate and climb rate should improve marginally as well. I never noticed these slight improvements in combat though. After removal I couldn’t outrun, outclimb or outrun any opponent I couldn’t before. 
 

The increased rollrate is noticeably though. But with the guns the 190 rollrate still is awesome and I seldom use it to it’s full extent- except for the wildest defensive manoeuvres. And for those even the unreduced rollrate is good enough. 
 

would that be different in the bobp/Bon environment?

 

honest question. 

 

I thought like you for about 10 years I was incredulous about the ability to delete the machine guns and outer wing cannons from the A-4 and A-5 in the original Il-2! It didn't make sense. But I like being at a disadvantage... so I tried it and found I was actually at an advantage (who needs more than 2x20mm cannons anyway)?

 

So, my guess is that you are thinking about these things (turn rate, climb rate, top speed, acceleration) as absolute values... as a single number for a given altitude. If that number is less than your opponent, you are at a disadvantage. If giving up a lot of firepower only changes that number slightly, and not enough to make up the difference... then it really isn't changing the equation.

However, the situation is a bit more complicated. Turns are usually gradual turns... during WWII it was wise to not always trying to turn at the maximum turn rate or the minimum turn radius. Too steep a turn and your aircraft has to lose altitude in order to avoid stalling... and your opponent has an advantage. One needs to maintain energy (speed and altitude) while gaining an advantageous position for firing on the enemy.

 

During an actual dogfight there are periods of turning and periods of acceleration. The steepness of the turn impacts strongly the drag. If you can accelerate slightly more you can afford to turn slightly more often without losing as much energy. This allows you to be more likely to actually execute a maneuver that puts you in an advantageous position.

 

The capstone to all of this is that the advantages are building up over time... so an 11km/h difference might not seem like much... but accumulated over a couple of minutes of turns and accelerations, it builds up - and can be the difference between successfully executing a single turn to give you a firing solution or not at a critical moment in the dogfight. So, even small changes in mediocre performance can eventually be decisive in whether an option to take a decisive maneuver appears!

 

The youtube channel "Growling Sidewinder" has some pretty good analysis of dogfights in DCS which show such phenomena.

[esk_pedja]

We are discussing "childish" things... " Does a turn rate, agility,...etc. matters in aerial combat ?"

 

Even the slight difference - does make a difference, very often a decisive one !

 

Do you think that Luftwaffe pilots reduced wings cannons to 2 - because they where too lazy to carry 4 wing cannons ?

 

Do you think that German engineers constructed Dora with 2 wing cannons, close to the fuselage - as they felt sorry to blast the allied planes with 4 wing cannons ? 

 

( When I mentioned Mustang I did not mean 51D but - possible earlier versions that we might hope for in Normandy edition )

Edited July 19, 2020 by esk_pedja

[Yogiflight]

54 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

who needs more than 2x20mm cannons anyway)?

Everyone, who does not hit vital parts of the enemy aircraft. If you just hit a wing, it makes a hell of a difference if you hit with two or four 20mm guns.

But, yes the win in agility might make the difference, if you get the chance to shoot at your enemy.

[Bremspropeller]

2 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

I get that sentiment but I think these very minor improvements don‘t outweigh the substantial loss of firepower as that‘s what could turn the one Snapshot you might have against superior allied a/c a killing blow. 

 

I think 2x20mm (and 2x13mm) is quite the firepower and will usually severely hamper the enemy's ability to fight with you.

 

While leaving two 20mm at home doesn't give you much, it gives you a little - and a little is much better than nothing at all ?

[Lusekofte]

Personally I find it very adequate , but then again I fly allied most if the time. 
I personally stoped flying online after 30 mm came on marked. I simply see no point feeding 90% target campers with 30 mm. 
And this is why axis pilots want armament before maneuverability. All they have to do is wait for a incoming heavy target. 
a couple of 20’s won’t give them the same spectacular effects. 

[CUJO_1970]

It was common knowledge among Luftwaffe fighter squadrons on they didn't need the outer cannons.

 

Practical experience in the air showed them that 2 20mm and 2 13mm would destroy any Allied aircraft - including heavy bombers. This is partial reason why D-9 was standardized with no outer guns - the 2 20mm and the 2 13mm were working just fine. Now - if you are concentrating on heavy bombers and in fact you are under orders to destroy heavy bombers and avoid engaging enemy fighters then you are going to want those outer cannons.

 

The fact of the matter though is this: Any Anton could easily remove the outer guns. It was done regularly in real life as shown by pilot commentary and photographic evidence.

 

It should absolutely be an option in the sim as well.

 

10 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

It would be cool to have BoN have more options for the A-8, e.g.

 

The real option we need for the A8 is the...A9 ?

[esk_pedja]

2 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

It was common knowledge among Luftwaffe fighter squadrons on they didn't need the outer cannons.

 

Practical experience in the air showed them that 2 20mm and 2 13mm would destroy any Allied aircraft - including heavy bombers. This is partial reason why D-9 was standardized with no outer guns - the 2 20mm and the 2 13mm were working just fine. Now - if you are concentrating on heavy bombers and in fact you are under orders to destroy heavy bombers and avoid engaging enemy fighters then you are going to want those outer cannons.

 

The fact of the matter though is this: Any Anton could easily remove the outer guns. It was done regularly in real life as shown by pilot commentary and photographic evidence.

 

It should absolutely be an option in the sim as well.

 

 

The real option we need for the A8 is the...A9 ?

+1 ?

We can only hope that this piece of history will be included in some further patch... 

 

[6FG_Big_Al]

Generally I do not find it bad that the outer cannons cannot be removed. In the current situation of the DM 2 x 20 and the 2x 13 are certainly enough, but from what I have read many units were equipped with them or even with the 2x 30 mm (Those that were hunting bombers) . Of course there are some aces, like in the picture above, that still let removed the outer cannons, but I'm honestly not sure that this was the norm at this time .

 

I'd rather see the bubble canopy for the A8/F8 as a modification, or, as Bremspropeller had already mentioned, a possibility to add the "increased emergency power" as a modification to be able to portray the early A8.