Why the Fw-190A3? What is the charm?

[Bremspropeller]

Back in the day, the roles weren't really fleshed out that much.

"Designed as interceptor" wasn't really a thing. The P-47 and P-38 were "designed as interceptors", too.

 

They built aircraft that were faster than contemporary bombers and that could also climb quite well.

Another point was bringing enough firepower to destroy larger all-metal airframes. It took half the war, 'till somebody had really figured out how to arm a fighter for that role.

[Diggun]

59 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

Spitfires being sent to engage '109's whilst the Hurricanes went for the bombers during the battle of Britain is largely a myth btw.   

So much this. Inter-squadron communication while airborne was basically non existent during 1940.squadrons were vectored onto a raid piecemeal, and almost always arrived with a height disadvantage. You engaged what you could, whatever shape it was, then got the hell out of dodge. Even the Big Wing concept would rapidly become a general melee after contact. Hurricanes between July - October 1940 'were credited with four-fifths of all enemy aircraft destroyed in the period' (Mason, the hawker hurricane, p. 560. The same author examined claims in every traceable a2a combat report by raf pilots in ww2. That's 11,400 reports. He found that hurricanes scored 55% of all kills during the war, spitfires, 33%, other fighters (in raf service) 12%. Mason, ibid, p. 211).

 

That ruddy film* (and the very deliberate national myth making that came after) has an awful lot to answer for!

 

*n.b. Its a fantastic film, but lousy history. Anyone else spotted the super young Ian Mcshane?! 

Edited July 29, 2020 by Diggun

[RedKestrel]

1 hour ago, Diggun said:

So much this. Inter-squadron communication while airborne was basically non existent during 1940.squadrons were vectored onto a raid piecemeal, and almost always arrived with a height disadvantage. You engaged what you could, whatever shape it was, then got the hell out of dodge. Even the Big Wing concept would rapidly become a general melee after contact. Hurricanes between July - October 1940 'were credited with four-fifths of all enemy aircraft destroyed in the period' (Mason, the hawker hurricane, p. 560. The same author examined claims in every traceable a2a combat report by raf pilots in ww2. That's 11,400 reports. He found that hurricanes scored 55% of all kills during the war, spitfires, 33%, other fighters (in raf service) 12%. Mason, ibid, p. 211).

 

That ruddy film* (and the very deliberate national myth making that came after) has an awful lot to answer for!

 

*n.b. Its a fantastic film, but lousy history. Anyone else spotted the super young Ian Mcshane?! 

Gents, it's become clear to me that this needs to be a Hurricane thread.

[cardboard_killer]

3 hours ago, esk_pedja said:

Spitfire as bomber interceptor ?

 

Nearly all pre-war designs were bomber interceptors because pre-war doctrine was that the fast bomber could bomb a country into submission. This fallacy was believed by most every air force. The bomber interceptor design stressed speed, firepower and climbing, things that made them also good air superiority weapons. However, interceptor design did not stress range as the bombers were coming to you, which was the real detriment of the Spit later in the war.

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

It took half the war, 'till somebody had really figured out how to arm a fighter for that role.

 

The eight MGs of the spit/hurricane were revolutionary when designed. It took a while to come up with light and reliable 20mm guns to replace them, that's all.

[6FG_Big_Al]

I can only post this when it come to 190's ?

 

[esk_pedja]

Another tribute to charm and performance of A3...

[nervenklau]

On 7/21/2020 at 7:25 AM, DerSheriff said:

While indeed a bit slower this is no comparison to the much slower Bf 109 G-4. You are ways safer in the Fw 190 than in the 109 speedwise.

I was flying both online and had troubles catching As and was running away in them. (or at least kept distance).

I am surprised that A3 is after than A5, is it historical correct?

[FTC_DerSheriff]

5 hours ago, nervenklau said:

I am surprised that A3 is after than A5, is it historical correct?

You mean faster at full throttle at alt?

No. Its not. I reported this to the devs

[CountZero]

i send han pm about that wrong max speed on a3 at full power a year ago, then few months later he rederected it to their fm team and thats all i know about it since then, to me a5 and a8 are correct and a3 is wrong:

 

 

Spoiler

 

Hello,

 

It looks like there is some bug with Fw-190A3 emergancy power top speed at 1500-2500m and abow 7000m.
When comparing all three Fw-190As in game, only A3 model shows strange spike in top speed and ata at thouse altitudes.

 

Airplanes i tested on Kuban autum map in quick mission, default modifications, 50% fuel, autopilot on, default trim.
Here is resoult of test in top speeds achived with Fw-190A5 ( that looks ok on both combat and emergancy power), and Fw-190A3 that looks ok on combat power, but at emergancy power shows spikes at 1500-2500m and abow 7000m:

 

Fw-190A3 top IAS achived from in game test:      
50m = 561km/h at emergancy power -538km/h at combat power         
1000m = 556km/h at emergancy power -535km/h at combat power
1500m = 554 -528
2000m = 540 -514
2500m = 526 -500
3000m = 500 -485
4000m = 493 -479
5000m = 486 -472
6000m = 478 -463       
6400m = 474 -454   
7000m = 469 -436 
7500m = 459 -422 
8000m = 444 -407
9000m = 413 -377
10000m = 380km/h at emergancy power -344km/h at combat power

 

Fw-190A5 top IAS achived from in game test:      
50m = 564km/h at emergancy power -541km/h at combat power         
1000m = 559km/h at emergancy power -537km/h at combat power
1500m = 547 -529
2000m = 533 -515
2500m = 519 -501
3000m = 505 -487
4000m = 498 -481
5000m = 491 -473
6000m = 482 -464    
6400m = 476 -455
7000m = 460 -437
7500m = 445 -422
8000m = 431 -407
9000m = 399 -377
10000m = 366km/h at emergancy power -341km/h at combat power

 

When that speeds are converted in TAS (using this; https://aerotoolbox.net/airspeed-conversions/ , inputing IAS values from game test in "Equivalent Airspeed:" section ), 
spike of FW-190A3 top speed at emergancy power (red right line on picture) is visable compared to normal looking Fw-190A5 ( blue right line on picture ). 

Combat power top speeds (left lines for each airplane) also look normal and as expected for both airplanes.

 

Picture showing this comparison of Fw-190A3 (red), and Fw-190A5 (blue) TAS top speed:
https://imgur.com/aV0Vr5M

 

Differance in ata shown in game betwen both airplanes on thouse altitudes:
at 50-1000m all looks ok
at 1500m Fw-190A3 shows ~1.36ata while Fw-190A5 shows ~1.29ata at 100% throttle , resulting in Fw-190A3 show strange spike in top speed
at 2000m Fw-190A3 shows ~1.29ata while Fw-190A5 shows ~1.23ata at 100% throttle , resulting in Fw-190A3 show strange spike in top speed
at 2500m Fw-190A3 shows ~1.26ata while Fw-190A5 shows ~1.21ata at 100% throttle , resulting in Fw-190A3 show strange spike in top speed
at 3000-6400 all looks ok, and at 6400m both airplanes show ~1.41ata at 100% throttle and top speeds look normal
at 7000m Fw-190A3 shows ~1.41ata while Fw-190A5 shows ~1.26ata at 100% throttle , resulting in Fw-190A3 show strange spike in top speed
at 7500m Fw-190A3 shows ~1.31ata while Fw-190A5 shows ~1.19ata at 100% throttle , resulting in Fw-190A3 show strange spike in top speed
at 8000m Fw-190A3 shows ~1.28ata while Fw-190A5 shows ~1.13ata at 100% throttle , resulting in Fw-190A3 show strange spike in top speed 
at 9000m Fw-190A3 shows ~1.14ata while Fw-190A5 shows ~1.01ata at 100% throttle , resulting in Fw-190A3 show strange spike in top speed 
at 10000m Fw-190A3 shows ~1.01ata while Fw-190A5 shows ~0.9ata at 100% throttle , resulting in Fw-190A3 show strange spike in top speed 

When comparing achived test resoults, to technical specifications given in game and also to data from games "caeroplane_fw_190_a3.txt", differances are not big. 
Thats why i belive test method and conversion i used is not with that big errors that would resoult in showing this big spike in Fw-190A3 emergancy power top speed at 1500-2500m and abow 7000m, making me think that is resoult of bug on Fw-190A3.

From "caeroplane_fw_190_a3.txt" ( extracted by "unGTP-IL2.exe" mod tool from "Scripts.gtp" ) showing top speed at combat power settings :
"    ////// MaxAltTAS = <float ALTITUDE>, <float TAS>
    MaxAltTAS = 0,535
    MaxAltTAS = 1000,558
    MaxAltTAS = 2000,563
    MaxAltTAS = 3000,562
    MaxAltTAS = 4000,584
    MaxAltTAS = 5000,607
    MaxAltTAS = 6000,626
    MaxAltTAS = 7000,624
    MaxAltTAS = 8000,620
    MaxAltTAS = 9000,613"

From in game technical specifications for Fw-190A3 :
Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Emergency: 560 km/h  ,  test shows 562km/h
Maximum true air speed at 3000 m, engine mode - Emergency: 581 km/h    ,  test shows 580km/h
Maximum true air speed at 6400 m, engine mode - Emergency: 662 km/h    ,  test shows 660km/h

Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Combat: 535 km/h    ,  test shows 539km/h
Maximum true air speed at 3000 m, engine mode - Combat: 562 km/h       ,  test shows 563km/h
Maximum true air speed at 6000 m, engine mode - Combat: 626 km/h       , test shows 630km/h

not big missmatch

 

Here is also picture of comparison of in game test for top speed betwen Fw-190A8(red) and Fw-190A5 (blue), and all looks like it should be, so it seams Fw-190A3 is only one with problem:
https://imgur.com/Pejqay8

 

Also Fw-190A8 has same ata values as Fw-190A5 at and abow 6400m on emergancy power (its naturaly slower as its ~300kg more heavy on same state then A5) , only Fw-190A3 has higher values, and its strange as all 3 have same engine, so if values of ata would  be same on all 3 190A airplanes when emergancy power is used at thouse altitudes Fw-190A3 would probably not have that big spike in top speed compared to Fw-190A5 ( that is only ~70kg heavier on same state then 190A3) as it has now.

 

 

[Frequent_Flyer]

It fills up my gun sight much better than the puny 109.

[Yogiflight]

1 hour ago, Frequent_Flyer said:

It fills up my gun sight much better than the puny 109.

Hopefully with its tail, not its nose. Otherwise you might be in serious trouble.

[esk_pedja]

I am waiting to try and see how will A3 cope with P51B...

By the way, is there any graphical display (table) of performance difference between P51B and P51D at various altitudes ?  

[41Sqn_Skipper]

1 hour ago, esk_pedja said:

I am waiting to try and see how will A3 cope with P51B...

By the way, is there any graphical display (table) of performance difference between P51B and P51D at various altitudes ?  

 

 

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangtest.html

 

Edited August 4, 2020 by 41Sqn_Skipper

[esk_pedja]

Maybe I should simplify the question:

 

How much is BoBdp. P51D faster at 2000m alt.  -  compared to older P51B that will feature in BoNmd. ...approx. ( km/h ) ?

 

( I am interested in chances of various Luftwaffe fighters to cope with it... )

 

 

 

Edited August 4, 2020 by esk_pedja

[CountZero]

13 minutes ago, esk_pedja said:

Maybe I should simplify the question:

 

How much is BoBdp. P51D faster at 2000m alt.  -  compared to older P51B that will feature in BoNmd. ...approx. ( km/h ) ?

 

( I am interested in chances of various Luftwaffe fighters to cope with it... )

 

 

 

if you look charts he posted you can see that, so count on 10mph slower B model down low, still faster then A3 we have in game, your best alt with only few kmh differance to 51B will probably be 1500m and 5,5 to 7km if A3 dont get fixed by then.

[esk_pedja]

6 minutes ago, CountZero said:

if you look charts he posted you can see that, so count on 10mph slower B model down low, still faster then A3 we have in game, your best alt with only few kmh differance to 51B will probably be 1500m and 5,5 to 7km if A3 dont get fixed by then.

 

What should get fixed at A3 by then ? Did I miss some issue ?

[CountZero]

31 minutes ago, esk_pedja said:

 

What should get fixed at A3 by then ? Did I miss some issue ?

compared to other 190As in game its 10kmh faster at 1500-2500kmh and 20kmh faster up high for no obvios reason exept something is wrong with it. Only thing on axis side faster then it up high is 109k4 and 262, if what we have in game is real A3, then why would axis even build any other airplanes for high alt when they had best airplane for it in 1942 with 190a3 ?

Edited August 4, 2020 by CountZero

[Reggie_Mental]

On 7/29/2020 at 12:18 PM, Diggun said:

So much this. Inter-squadron communication while airborne was basically non existent during 1940.squadrons were vectored onto a raid piecemeal, and almost always arrived with a height disadvantage.

But the majority of LW AARs said the RAF usually arrived with the height advantage?

 

I've only recently got into the Fw190A series. The A8 is my favourite.

 

 

 

#478498849.

Edited August 5, 2020 by Reggie_Mental

[Diggun]

38 minutes ago, Reggie_Mental said:

But the majority of LW AARs said the RAF usually arrived with the height advantage?

Maybe both sides arrived with a height advantage? 

 

I'd love to know your source for this, as it contradicts pretty much everything I've ever read about the battle. Sure, on very rare occasions, the raf may have been in the right place, at the right time, and with a height advantage, but this is always presented as being a rare exception  rather than the rule. Which makes sense, when you think about it, the interceptors are always reactive, and dependent on radar and ground observers to find a raid. Raf memoirs almost always have a grumble about being bought in too low (again!) - eg Wellum, Lacy, Bader all have this gripe in their respective books. This is also backed up by Deighton, Robinson, Bishop, and many more authoritative sources on the Battle. 

 

If it was that easy for bomber raids to be intercepted by fighters with a height advantage, why did the luftwaffe struggle so much with this when intercepting the 8th air force later in the war and with much more advanced detection and fighter control procedures? 

 

Just to justify this post's existence in this thread, my favourite 190 is the Dora ?

Edited August 4, 2020 by Diggun

[Eisenfaustus]

1 hour ago, Diggun said:

Maybe both sides arrived with a height advantage? 

Maybe intended as a joke I guess it comes pretty close. 
 

sometimes interceptors might have had an advantage over bombers but disadvantage against high flying escorts. Other times in the heat of battle both sides felt at disadvantage and reported thusly. Sometimes there might even have been lies to explain failure. 
 

and from what I understand the Ratio at which the two sides entered battle at a height advantage shifted during the from lw to raf. 

[esk_pedja]

6 hours ago, CountZero said:

compared to other 190As in game its 10kmh faster at 1500-2500kmh and 20kmh faster up high for no obvios reason exept something is wrong with it. Only thing on axis side faster then it up high is 109k4 and 262, if what we have in game is real A3, then why would axis even build any other airplanes for high alt when they had best airplane for it in 1942 with 190a3 ?

 

? It was shorter plane, FW become heavier (longer) later - made as more versatile planes (Heavy Bombers, Ground attack) heavy armament and armor.

You can ask the same question for Bf-109 : Why to develop G6 in massive production, when they had perfect ""falcon" with F4 ?

?

Edited August 4, 2020 by esk_pedja

[Lusekofte]

If no one else going to say it I will. 
I feel better being shot down in a A 3 compared to a D 9. 
I am expected to perform better In the latter

[Frequent_Flyer]

On 8/2/2020 at 1:34 PM, Yogiflight said:

Hopefully with its tail, not its nose. Otherwise you might be in serious trouble.

No worries the " brilliant "  German design engineer was kind enough to install an in cockpit bar- in front . 

Edited August 5, 2020 by Frequent_Flyer
to clafify

[=621=Samikatz]

15 hours ago, esk_pedja said:

Maybe I should simplify the question:

 

How much is BoBdp. P51D faster at 2000m alt.  -  compared to older P51B that will feature in BoNmd. ...approx. ( km/h ) ?

 

( I am interested in chances of various Luftwaffe fighters to cope with it... )

 

As I recall the P-51B/C had a thinner wing (with the machine guns mounted sideways) leading to a marginally higher top speed

 

If it gets RAF anti-diver settings, it will be the fastest prop fighter at sea level

[esk_pedja]

4 hours ago, =621=Samikatz said:

 

As I recall the P-51B/C had a thinner wing (with the machine guns mounted sideways) leading to a marginally higher top speed

 

If it gets RAF anti-diver settings, it will be the fastest prop fighter at sea level

 

Does it Mean that Mustang P51B/C from early 43 had the same engine power as BoBp P-51D ?

[41Sqn_Skipper]

10 minutes ago, esk_pedja said:

 

Does it Mean that Mustang P51B/C from early 43 had the same engine power as BoBp P-51D ?

 

Without 150 octane it's the same engine power.

There was no 150 octane fuel available in 1943. But it was available from mid 1944 on in UK based squadrons and from January 1945 on also for squadrons based on the continent.

 

Edit: to make it clear: B/C and D have the same engine and both used 100 and 150 octane fuel. B/C have better aerodynamic and are lighter, but weaker armed and have worse cockpit view.

 

Edited August 5, 2020 by 41Sqn_Skipper

[CountZero]

14 hours ago, esk_pedja said:

 

? It was shorter plane, FW become heavier (longer) later - made as more versatile planes (Heavy Bombers, Ground attack) heavy armament and armor.

You can ask the same question for Bf-109 : Why to develop G6 in massive production, when they had perfect ""falcon" with F4 ?

?

same engines and some how A3 produces more ata on some alts then A5 and A8 ( both have same ata, only a3 has more making it fastest german airplane abow 7,5km in game up to 1945 where only 109k4 can match it high alt speed )

Picture showing this comparison of Fw-190A3 (red), and Fw-190A5 (blue) TAS top speed:

 

Differance in ata shown in game betwen both airplanes on thouse altitudes:
at 50-1000m all looks ok
at 1500m Fw-190A3 shows ~1.36ata while Fw-190A5 shows ~1.29ata at 100% throttle , resulting in Fw-190A3 show strange spike in top speed
at 2000m Fw-190A3 shows ~1.29ata while Fw-190A5 shows ~1.23ata at 100% throttle , resulting in Fw-190A3 show strange spike in top speed
at 2500m Fw-190A3 shows ~1.26ata while Fw-190A5 shows ~1.21ata at 100% throttle , resulting in Fw-190A3 show strange spike in top speed
at 3000-6400 all looks ok, and at 6400m both airplanes show ~1.41ata at 100% throttle and top speeds look normal
at 7000m Fw-190A3 shows ~1.41ata while Fw-190A5 shows ~1.26ata at 100% throttle , resulting in Fw-190A3 show strange spike in top speed
at 7500m Fw-190A3 shows ~1.31ata while Fw-190A5 shows ~1.19ata at 100% throttle , resulting in Fw-190A3 show strange spike in top speed
at 8000m Fw-190A3 shows ~1.28ata while Fw-190A5 shows ~1.13ata at 100% throttle , resulting in Fw-190A3 show strange spike in top speed 
at 9000m Fw-190A3 shows ~1.14ata while Fw-190A5 shows ~1.01ata at 100% throttle , resulting in Fw-190A3 show strange spike in top speed 
at 10000m Fw-190A3 shows ~1.01ata while Fw-190A5 shows ~0.9ata at 100% throttle , resulting in Fw-190A3 show strange spike in top speed 

 

and same problem A5 had when it was made, and it got fixed when they made A8, fix clearly got skiped on A3 model

 

I dont need to ask same question for 109f4 and 109g6 because their max speed look realistic, and not broken like history books famous best high alt interceptor 190A3

Edited August 5, 2020 by CountZero

[Giovanni_Giorgio]

14 hours ago, esk_pedja said:

 

You can ask the same question for Bf-109 : Why to develop G6 in massive production, when they had perfect ""falcon" with F4 ?

?

I always had the same question. While it is understandable that Fw-190 gained weight to accommodate bombs, heavier armor and guns, Bf-109 was mostly intended for fighter role (correct me if I am wrong).

[esk_pedja]

2 hours ago, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

 

Without 150 octane it's the same engine power.

There was no 150 octane fuel available in 1943. But it was available from mid 1944 on in UK based squadrons and from January 1945 on also for squadrons based on the continent.

 

Edit: to make it clear: B/C and D have the same engine and both used 100 and 150 octane fuel. B/C have better aerodynamic and are lighter, but weaker armed and have worse cockpit view.

 

 

I hope that Normandy refers to aerial preparations in late 43/early44 and combat around D Day.

After mid 1944 front was moved from Normandy towards NorthWest France and Belgium - i.e. there was no air combat over Normandy.

 

Anyway, it is better to enrich the sim with various types and periods of war... instead of having the same thing again in a different pack.

 

[41Sqn_Skipper]

2 minutes ago, esk_pedja said:

 

I hope that Normandy refers to aerial preparations in late 43/early44 and combat around D Day.

After mid 1944 front was moved from Normandy towards NorthWest France and Belgium - i.e. there was no air combat over Normandy.

 

Anyway, it is better to enrich the sim with various types and periods of war... instead of having the same thing again in a different pack.

 

 

IIRC the scope of the official career is from some weeks pre-invasion to the last week of August 1944.

[esk_pedja]

15 minutes ago, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

 

IIRC the scope of the official career is from some weeks pre-invasion to the last week of August 1944.

 

Some months pre-invasion ( instead of some weeks ) would make much, much more sense...

 

It would only make sense to start around Christmas 43 till April 44... By the May 44 Luftwaffe was cleared from the French coast.

 

Allied command would never start D-Day with Luftwaffe presence over their head ( over Channel and Normandy ).

 

What on earth happened over Normandy in August 1944 ???

 

...compared to wild areal combats in a few months prior to D-Day

 

Edited August 5, 2020 by esk_pedja

[PatrickAWlson]

1 hour ago, mincer said:

I always had the same question. While it is understandable that Fw-190 gained weight to accommodate bombs, heavier armor and guns, Bf-109 was mostly intended for fighter role (correct me if I am wrong).

 

The 109 still had to face faster, more heavily armed, more heavily armored opponents as time went on.  That meant more armor, heavier weapons, and bigger engines for the 109.  I don't think the 109 ever went through a redesign specifically to carry bombs, but it did have to react to what was being done with the planes that it would oppose.  

 

109s were use to attack US heavy bombers.  Beyond the heavies, everything else was getting faster and tougher.  If the 109 had stuck with lighter and smaller it would have suffered the same fate as the Zero - too slow and too fragile.

 

 

[LukeFF]

7 hours ago, esk_pedja said:

By the May 44 Luftwaffe was cleared from the French coast.

 

Allied command would never start D-Day with Luftwaffe presence over their head ( over Channel and Normandy ).

 

What on earth happened over Normandy in August 1944 ???

 

...compared to wild areal combats in a few months prior to D-Day

 

Ehm...what? There was plenty of aerial combat over Normandy from June - August 1944.

[sevenless]

9 hours ago, esk_pedja said:

After mid 1944 front was moved from Normandy towards NorthWest France and Belgium - i.e. there was no air combat over Normandy.

 

Would make sense to read a book or two. For starters look here and then go into depth. You might be able learn a thing or two...

 

 

[esk_pedja]

"These German figures of 13,983 aircraft compare with an allied total of 96,000 planes."

The fact is - that during the winter months 1944 ( fighter combats ) Luftwaffe was by March "44 reduced to Reich defence...

 

I don''t need to read a book how to cross the street - in order to cross the street...

 

- Eisenhower would never even consider invasion options - with a significant areal presence of Luftwaffe over the French coast

- If German areal presence was significant over the French coast, why they did not react to Invasion ? ...or areal preparation of blasting the French coast prior to D-Day ?

 Aircraft is not a tank, it does not need a seven days to come and engage the invasion force, it could react in one hour !

- Who would ( with a sane brain ) send a formations of glider planes and Dakotas into air space with enemy fighters ?

 

- If somebody finds it entertaining to drop the hi-tech sea mines into the sea - I respect that... for me it is "watching the grass growing"

 

The point is - that Great Battles has a huge gap (emptiness) of mid war (1943 or late 1943/early 1944) on the west front and that filling that gap of very exciting period - would be the right hit !

...instead of events 3 months prior to BoBdp period. 

 

 

 

 

[=621=Samikatz]

Fw-190 fighter bombers did attempt to respond to the invasion. By and large they were completely overwhelmed by aggressive sweeps from Allied fighters, and no coordinated response could be made, but the Luftwaffe was not non-existent

[cardboard_killer]

2 hours ago, esk_pedja said:

The point is - that Great Battles has a huge gap (emptiness) of mid war (1943 or late 1943/early 1944) on the west front and that filling that gap of very exciting period -

 

While I generally agree that comparing the two opponents during June - August shows a vast inequity in sorties, 1943-May-44 was perhaps even worse except for the attempts by the LW to bomb England in retaliation for the WAllied strategic bombing campaign. The LW in 1943 was fighting in Italy and the USSR; in 1944 it was fighting over Germany and husbanding forces for the upcoming invaision.

 

1941-42 was much more active over France I believe. And even then, the LW had the initiative and often did not come out to fight as there wasn't much in the way of strategic importance (yet) over France.

[PatrickAWlson]

7 hours ago, esk_pedja said:

...

The point is - that Great Battles has a huge gap (emptiness) of mid war (1943 or late 1943/early 1944) on the west front and that filling that gap of very exciting period - would be the right hit !

...instead of events 3 months prior to BoBdp period. 

 

 

 

 

 

The gap can be filled all the way back to 1942 with the current and proposed plane set.  Normandy is the battle the the product will be named after but the map is one of the most stable and long lived in the series.  

 

[LukeFF]

15 hours ago, esk_pedja said:

The fact is - that during the winter months 1944 ( fighter combats ) Luftwaffe was by March "44 reduced to Reich defence...

 

I don''t need to read a book how to cross the street - in order to cross the street...

 

The fact is also that the Luftwaffe sent quite a few units to France in response to the Normandy invasion. So...

Edited August 6, 2020 by LukeFF

[esk_pedja]

...so what were the Allied fighter/bomber losses inflicted by that sending of Luftwaffe units, from D-Day to next seven days ?

Why they had to be sent to France in response, ...instead of being located in west France prior to Invasion, that was anyway expected ?

 

Because Luftwaffe was reduced to Reich defense, 2-3 months prior to D-Day... with a few exceptions that normally occurred, in a large offensive events of historic proportions... 

 

Edited August 7, 2020 by esk_pedja