Jump to content

Game version 4.506 discussion: Fw 190 A-6; Bf 109 E-7 in 4K, other changes


Recommended Posts

Unfortunately there are always problems with the bomb dropping sequence with the Jabo versions as an example the new one: Fw190 A6 G3 Choice of bombs: 3xSc250 Single throw possible: -Yes

Discard all: -Yes

Switch wing bombs in a pair according to: -Yes

Left wing bombs with fuselage bombs or right wing bombs with fuselage bombs make no sense at all because you then fly to the left or right wing with a remaining bomb. Nobody would want that because, firstly, you are subject to an increased risk of stalling and, secondly, it is unearodynamic. We come to the G3R5 armament as an example here 8xSC70 Single throw possible: -yes

Discard all: -no 3 bombs remain on the fuselage support (ER), which are only dropped by pressing the bomb release again.

That makes no sense because you should be able to throw them all off as a package. The order on the left and the fuselage carrier make no sense here. So what would be needed are:

all in single throw hull bomb only

only wing bombs 2x or 4x pairs

all bombs at the same time Unfortunately,

the FW190 A8 has had similar problems for a long time.

Scroll down:

 

Unfortunately it is very difficult to find books about it .

 

Edited by JG4_Widukind
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

That opens up the "taktisches Loch" to put in more versatile weapon options or even additional gas (which unfortunately was never carried out).

 

The projected D-13 versions were to put more gas in the wing, so the idea was taken up later again. It never materialised, though...


Would have been cool had they serially produced the over wing Doppelreiter tanks. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2021 at 11:27 PM, -DED-Rapidus said:

What are the conditions for the occurrence of the bug? please write in the bugs and issues section.

It's happening online on any server.

Just like it was described above you spawn and no planes are anywhere to be seen.

Restarting the game fixed it for me but a simple reconnect might be enough.

It happens a lot since one of the previous updates, it's rather recent.

 

I actually previously reported it but the thread was deleted...classic.

Edited by =FEW=Hauggy
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jason_Williams said:


Guys, 

 

As usual we request tracks to help discover such issues. 
 

Jason

If it happens again I'll remember to record one but I didn't think of it at the time

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


Guys, 

 

As usual we request tracks to help discover such issues. 
 

Jason

Will do my best to provide one,

 

Is there anything else that helps?

 



 

Edited by Denum
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, =FEW=Hauggy said:

It's happening online on any server.

Just like it was described above you spawn and no planes are anywhere to be seen.

Restarting the game fixed it for me but a simple reconnect might be enough.

It happens a lot since one of the previous updates, it's rather recent.

 

I actually previously reported it but the thread was deleted...classic.

Yeah, this is exactly what I experienced (apart from the ram... LOL... classic.)

 

Will post a track also if it happens again.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Flying Moscow 109 E7 career and three things I noticed.

 

1. Turning down settings to Balanced and bumping SteamVR SS 10% gave me good performance, great visuals and more detail.  At the same SS on Ultra, my system bogs down.

 

2. The 4K skin on the 109 E7 is gorgeous (enjoyed looking out my canopy and admiring the wings or flying nice and close to my fellow flight 109's).

 

3. With a run on a Train Station - the explosion from my 250kg bomb (on the Locomotive) and subsequent splash damage was a site to behold and a big improvement with regards to immersion.  Subsequently I turned my attention on AA with MG and then back on some left over train carriages and a vehicle with mg/canons.  AI did well too.

 

AI flight when intercepted by enemy fighters will evade and fight but if I get in the mix and save their ass - the rest of the flight turns and leaves back to base leaving me dealing with the remaining enemy fighters.  Felt a little left hanging but cloud cover enabled me to break off engagement and evade to return home.

 

On the whole, very nice and again, a big thumbs up to the continued improvement by the Devs.  Must start a Rheinland Career and check out the 190's in a fighter unit.  Going 190 A6 with removed outer canons sounds like a fun Jäger recipe.:biggrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, blitze said:

Felt a little left hanging but cloud cover enabled me to break off engagement and evade to return home.

 

Does using cloud work against the AI or can they see through it?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2021 at 11:15 PM, -DED-Rapidus said:

The principle of operation of the tower stopper has changed, even in the previous update. What was meant by that?

I'm talking about the fact that when I go from the tank commander station (and looking through binoculars), to the gunner station, the turret automatically spins causing me to lose my target.

 

I show you a video to better understand. (you don't have to watch the entire video, it's always the same).

 

https://youtu.be/umhFfvqaww8

Link to post
Share on other sites

The E7 got some really awesome skins! Thank you!

 

 

I did a skin for "Alice" a long time ago. Big surprise for me when I saw the awesome new, 4k, official version! :o:

 

All of them are amazing!

 

Bravo!!! :clapping:

 

alice111.thumb.png.d40e79c506da8abf6fad8d945430d19f.png

Edited by Jaws2002
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly does the change to the MC 202's propeller have on it's performance?  I have only had time for a short hop in the Folgore and really didn't notice much.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CDRSEABEE said:

Does using cloud work against the AI or can they see through it?

 

I find, AI loose me if I use clouds to run into.  I am though also making sure to change course weaving through the clouds on an approximate direction to base and checking 6 constantly.

 

As they say, never fly in a straight line. :ph34r:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2021 at 8:55 PM, JG1_Wittmann said:

"The Fw 190 A-6 was developed to address shortcomings found in previous "A" models when attacking U.S. heavy bombers. Modifications of the type to date had caused the weight of the aircraft to creep up. To combat this and to allow better weapons to be installed in the wings, a structurally redesigned lighter, stronger wing was introduced. The normal wing armament was increased to four 20 mm MG 151/20E wing root and outer wing cannon with larger ammunition boxes while retaining the two MG 17 fuselage machine guns. New electrical sockets and reinforced weapon mounts were fitted internally in the wings to allow the installation of either 20 mm or 30 mm (1.18 in) ammunition boxes as well as for underwing armament"   Wikipedia  , may be wrong

 

I downloaded the update as soon as I got home from wok and was really looking fwd to trying out the A6  against some bombers......   Now unless I'm missing something, I checked 3 times,  it appears there is no option for the twin mg151 gunpods that you can load on the A5, in addition, there is no  MK108 load.  SO  if this A6 was indeed developed with a lighter, stronger wing to carry heavier armament to more effectively deal with heavy bombers, then why do the variants we can get  have less capability in that area than the A5 ?      Seems to me  like in that regard we have a monstrous FAIL. 

 

S!,

While I don't really think this is a "monstrous FAIL", it does call in to question what sources are being used. I'm away from my home library, but I do have a couple of .pdfs to offer in support of Wittmann's points. I'll follow up on this thread once I get back to my house, and I'll dig up more data which I'll cite to help clear up this issue.

 

There was mention that the term lightened really meant strengthened. I question this interpretation. I can't remember how many sources have used the terms "lightened" and strengthed" together in the same sentence. This statement is used very often to describe the new wing. Why would both terms be used if they were intended to have a single meaning? I take it to mean both together to describe the new wing as most authors write.

 

I've noticed that several people have mentioned "serial" production. I'm assuming that means coming from the factory? My German is not very good, but from my reading, factory installed kits would fall under Umrust-Bausatze designation or "U" for short. This differs from Rustsatze, which are field conversion kits or "R" for short. Examples of factory kits would have designations like, "FW 190A5/U3" (jabo with racks to carry up to 2,200kg of bombs/fuel), while field kits would follow "FW 190A6/R1" (twin WB151/20 pack). I would be most interested to see if anyone can cite the number of "R" kits that were produced? Several sources list these R kits as being used, although in some cases, in very limited way. Additionally, since the wing was designed to accept these kits, why wouldn't field crew install them if a future mission could possibly be more successful with the kits? I'm guessing that wb151/20 packs would be put to use on an A6 when an A5 that was equipped with them was retired. It would seem to be a poor use of resources otherwise.

 

I would like to see citations that would completely eliminate the use of the missing R kits from the A6.

 

I'm sure it's not the ultimate source for all things Military History, but it's a decent site... http://www.historyofwar.org/

I still prefer my books :)

 

Sorry about the size of images ;)

 

Picture1.jpg

Picture2.jpg

Picture3.jpg

Picture4.jpg

Picture6.jpg

Picture5.jpg

Edited by JV44HeinzBar
image didn't load
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, JV44HeinzBar said:

 

S!,

While I don't really think this is a "monstrous FAIL", it does call in to question what sources are being used. I'm away from my home library, but I do have a couple of .pdfs to offer in support of Wittmann's points. I'll follow up on this thread once I get back to my house, and I'll dig up more data which I'll cite to help clear up this issue.

 

There was mention that the term lightened really meant strengthened. I question this interpretation. I can't remember how many sources have used the terms "lightened" and strengthed" together in the same sentence. This statement is used very often to describe the new wing. Why would both terms be used if they were intended to have a single meaning? I take it to mean both together to describe the new wing as most authors write.

 

I've noticed that several people have mentioned "serial" production. I'm assuming that means coming from the factory? My German is not very good, but from my reading, factory installed kits would fall under Umrust-Bausatze designation or "U" for short. This differs from Rustsatze, which are field conversion kits or "R" for short. Examples of factory kits would have designations like, "FW 190A5/U3" (jabo with racks to carry up to 2,200kg of bombs/fuel), while field kits would follow "FW 190A6/R1" (twin WB151/20 pack). I would be most interested to see if anyone can cite the number of "R" kits that were produced? Several sources list these R kits as being used, although in some cases, in very limited way. Additionally, since the wing was designed to accept these kits, why wouldn't field crew install them if a future mission could possibly be more successful with the kits? I'm guessing that wb151/20 packs would be put to use on an A6 when an A5 that was equipped with them was retired. It would seem to be a poor use of resources otherwise.

 

I would like to see citations that would completely eliminate the use of the missing R kits from the A6.

 

I'm sure it's not the ultimate source for all things Military History, but it's a decent site... http://www.historyofwar.org/

I still prefer my books :)

 

Sorry about the size of images ;)

 

Picture1.jpg

Picture2.jpg

Picture3.jpg

Picture4.jpg

Picture6.jpg

Picture5.jpg

Yeah I keep wondering why we don't get any 30mm (Mk103) option with the a6 or a8. Some cite that it was rarely used being the reason. That just doesn't seem to be the reason. We have rare modifications and even prototypes with the LaGG and Ju-87 armaments. Hell, the La-5fn we have is like the rarest unicorn version there ever was. 

Edited by Danziger
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Danziger said:

Yeah I keep wondering why we don't get any 30mm option with the a6 or a8. Some cite that it was rarely used being the reason. That just doesn't seem to be the reason. We have rare modifications and even prototypes with the LaGG and Ju-87 armaments. Hell, the La-5fn we have is like the rarest unicorn version there ever was. 

 

We have the 30mm cannons as a modification for the A8. One can argue whether a modification is relevant or accurate to implement but i don't think the lack of 30 mm on the A6 is really an issue. The plane already has a very wide array of options.

 

Grt M

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, I./ZG1_Dutchvdm said:

 

We have the 30mm cannons as a modification for the A8. One can argue whether a modification is relevant or accurate to implement but i don't think the lack of 30 mm on the A6 is really an issue. The plane already has a very wide array of options.

 

Grt M

I should have specified the Mk 103 gondolas for A/F8. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Danziger said:

I should have specified the Mk 103 gondolas for A/F8. 

 

A that explains it. Don't know. I believe they where extremely difficult to aim and where not regarded as an useful addition irl. 

 

Grt M

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Crockett said:

"Wind of Fury" campaign? I couldn't find it on the campaign page. Any info on this?

 

 

That is the free Tempest campaign. Should be already in your game under campaigns - if you have Bodenplatte.

 

 

Edited by kendo
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Crockett said:

"Wind of Fury" campaign? I couldn't find it on the campaign page. Any info on this?

 

It's a free campaign that you get when you buy Battle of Bodenplatte.  You should find it under "sripted campaign"

 

9 hours ago, JV44HeinzBar said:

 

S!,

While I don't really think this is a "monstrous FAIL", it does call in to question what sources are being used. I'm away from my home library, but I do have a couple of .pdfs to offer in support of Wittmann's points. I'll follow up on this thread once I get back to my house, and I'll dig up more data which I'll cite to help clear up this issue.

 

There was mention that the term lightened really meant strengthened. I question this interpretation. I can't remember how many sources have used the terms "lightened" and strengthed" together in the same sentence. This statement is used very often to describe the new wing. Why would both terms be used if they were intended to have a single meaning? I take it to mean both together to describe the new wing as most authors write.

 

I've noticed that several people have mentioned "serial" production. I'm assuming that means coming from the factory? My German is not very good, but from my reading, factory installed kits would fall under Umrust-Bausatze designation or "U" for short. This differs from Rustsatze, which are field conversion kits or "R" for short. Examples of factory kits would have designations like, "FW 190A5/U3" (jabo with racks to carry up to 2,200kg of bombs/fuel), while field kits would follow "FW 190A6/R1" (twin WB151/20 pack). I would be most interested to see if anyone can cite the number of "R" kits that were produced? Several sources list these R kits as being used, although in some cases, in very limited way. Additionally, since the wing was designed to accept these kits, why wouldn't field crew install them if a future mission could possibly be more successful with the kits? I'm guessing that wb151/20 packs would be put to use on an A6 when an A5 that was equipped with them was retired. It would seem to be a poor use of resources otherwise.

 

I would like to see citations that would completely eliminate the use of the missing R kits from the A6.

 

I'm sure it's not the ultimate source for all things Military History, but it's a decent site... http://www.historyofwar.org/

I still prefer my books :)

 

Sorry about the size of images ;)

Well regarding this topic I can only quote Peter Rodeike here from his Book " Focke Wulf Jagdflugzeug. Fw 190 A Fw 190 'Dora' Ta 152 H"

On page 176 he showed two posts regarding this topic.

1)

Quote

FW 190 A-6R1 mit je 2 MG 151 unter den Flächen

General Galland fordert zusätzlich zu den bei LZA Sagan-Küpper erstellten Flugzeugen die Ausrüstung von weiteren 30.  Da die Bereitstellung der zugehörigen Zellenbauteile durch Focke-Wulf schwierig ist, wird Genst. 6. Abt. den Abruf der Flugzeuge zum Umbau zeitgerecht veranlassen. Der Serienanlauf mit 50 Flugzeugen pro Monat erfolgt voraussichtlich ab September 1943.

 

FW 190 A-6R1 with 2 MG 151 under each wing.

In addition to the aircraft built at LZA Sagan-Küpper, General Galland is requesting that another 30 be equipped. Since it is difficult for Focke-Wulf to provide the associated airframe components, Genst. 6. dept. will arrange the call-off of the aircraft for conversion in a timely manner. Series production of 50 aircraft per month is expected to begin in September 1943.
 

Source: GL/Genst.-Besprechung, Tagesnotiz Nr.54 vom 22.Juni 1943

Rodeikes comment on this order is simply that he couldn't find any photograpsh that show A6/A8's with this kit as well as he couldn't find any loss reports with the type mentioned. He concludes that only an unkown number of A-5/U12 and no other types made it to the fronlines.The other quote that he shows is from the Focke-Wulf development department

2)

Quote

Betr.: Fw 190 - Jagdflugzeuge mit 4 MG 151

1.) Die bisher für 50 Jagdflugzeuge pro Monat geforderten Waffenrüstsätze mit 2 x 2 MG 151 unter jeder Flügelseite werden gemäß neuer Entscheidung des Generalstabs nicht mehr benötigt.

 

2.) Die bisher angefertigten und komplett vorhandenen Rüstsätze sind bereitzustellen und nach Klärung an das Luftzeugamt Liegnitz zu senden.

 

3.) Die nicht kompletten Sätze sind zusammenstellen und nach Klärung mit dem RLM zu verschrotten.

 

Subject: Fw 190 fighters with 4 MG 151s

1.) The weapon armament sets with 2 x 2 MG 151 under each wing side previously required for 50 fighter aircraft per month are no longer required in accordance with the new decision of the General Staff.


2.) The armament sets previously made and complete are to be made available and sent to the Liegnitz Aircraft Office after clarification.


3.) The incomplete sets are to be collected and scrapped after clarification with the RLM.

 

Source: Focke Wulf-Entwicklungsmitteilung vom 15.4.1944

 

In general, I haven't found any information that contradicts the documents listed by Rodeike. And I would assume that the R1 armament sets demanded by Galland were sent to the front in very small numbers at most and that the armament set itself disappeared from frontline service from April 44 at the latest. Whereby it is unclear whether and how many A6 or A7/A8 were equipped with it.

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great update, thanks. That A6 skin looks gorgeous. Improved GROUND EFFECTS!!:good:... Nice. Hope that gets translated to all other artillery/AT guns and tanks. And thank you especially for the 8 feature updates to ground vehicles.:dance:

Edited by LachenKrieg
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, JV44HeinzBar said:

There was mention that the term lightened really meant strengthened. I question this interpretation. I can't remember how many sources have used the terms "lightened" and strengthed" together in the same sentence. This statement is used very often to describe the new wing. Why would both terms be used if they were intended to have a single meaning? I take it to mean both together to describe the new wing as most authors write.

 

One has to be careful - just because many authors write a thing doesn't neccessarily make it true. Especially in the decades just after the war, a lot of BS had been written due to the rather sparse supply of technical documentation. That stuff has been copied over and over again without the other authors challenging the initial mistake. After all author "X" was such an established person...

I think one should just take the wing as "changed" to accomodate all kinds of possible loadouts - ranging from additional guns in the outer wing-station, to a wide array of different bomb-loadouts. If it was really lighter and/ or stronger, one would have to see in original technicall documentation by Focke-Wulf. It probably was a bit stronger, but that's just a technical guess.

 

For the others:

30mm guns (other than MK108s) haven't been used because they proved to be unsatisfactory for the mission. That is pretty much a convergence of solutions found with the RAF and USAAF, which both also preferred bombs and rockets over large-caliber guns*.

The double 20mm caused too much drag and hence the later solution of fitting a single MK108 instead of the twin 151/20-pod was favoured.

 

____

* The guns will slow you down on the way in AND on the way out. The bombs and rockets give you a much cleaner, faster bird for getting away and hence improving your chance of getting both the pilot and the plane back home. Also, the guns are only superior for attacking tanks, while bombs and cluster-munitions (sadly still not in the game) add a good deal of flexibility for attacking all the other targets.

Edited by Bremspropeller
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/2/2021 at 16:02, AlexandreCosta said:

Ora funziona molto più facilmente sul mio pc di patate. Dopo aver letto il registro degli aggiornamenti non ho visto nulla ad esso correlato.

I didn't want to write it, but maybe it's true ... Like others I have noticed an improvement in the performance of my old PC.  Greater fluidity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Startrek66 said:

I didn't want to write it, but maybe it's true ... Like others I have noticed an improvement in the performance of my old PC.  Greater fluidity.

It seems that my italian typing is not bad at all.

 

On a more serious note, yes, I think something got better regarding the performance, although the devs didn't mention it.

 

I have been looking for a new pc, but right now the GPU market is a total joke, so I am more than happy to keep playing Il-2 with some slightly better performace for now.

Edited by AlexandreCosta
Just adding more info
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, AlexandreCosta said:

It seems that my italian typing is not bad at all.

 

On a more serious note, yes, I think something got better regarding the performance, although the devs didn't mention it.

 

I have been looking for a new pc, but right now the GPU market is a total joke, so I am more than happy to keep playing Il-2 with some slightly better performace for now.

Google translate is my friend 😆

In my opinion the performance improvement involves the CPU.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2021 at 12:20 AM, 71st_AH_Mastiff said:

fixed, it was a Steam-works redistribute update and had to redo the boundary on the WMR.

 

Thanks for posting the resolution. Too often there are posts like these and we never see if things got solved or if they remain ongoing problems. Also, glad you got it fixed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some have commented on "historical accuracy" f .   It looks like others have posted  photo evidence,  in book form  etc  that  the A6  had several kits available to it  that put either a 108 or 103   30 , or twin 151's on it.  Now the 103  may be overkill, and not used much  but I would think that should be up to players to decide to choose or not.  The pods under the wing do make the fw's  perform less capable in the area of flying without a doubt much worse that  the devs have already made it.  However, a twin 20 pod, a 108 or a 103 pod make these ac absolutely devastating to bombers.    This plane is supposed to be part of the Battle of Normandy  and in the west front at that time the Germans were  much more concerned with anti-bomber  ac  than they were  Jabo  ac.   If this was called  battle of Ukraine,  some eastern area, all of these jabo variants would be quite fitting,  but, it's not an eastern front campaign, but western.   The ability to chose more anti-bomber armament, would actually be, much more historically accurate for Battle of Normandy,  than all the jabo variants we can use !

 

Now  let's have some discussion of the different jabo selections.  There is a 1.65 ATA option avail for this ac,  but only if you hamstring it with a bunch of jabo nonsense.  Does anyone here really believe that these ac  1.65, with boost were never field stripped of the nonsense and sent up as clean fighters ?     The selection where you can haul 250kg bombs under the wings, and 1 centerline on the coffin is  like the A8, ok,  but not one time  did someone think, hey, let's just got w/ a 250kg under each wing,   and not have the centerline,  drag central, bomb hauler ?   Those would be good options to have,  and should not be hard to implement.   I'll toss in a quick blurb about selecting your own specific tailored ammo loadout,  which absolutely  should be in game as well.   Not historical would be asking for something that wasn't available,  not eliminating it because someone thinks it doesn't perform well, or was rarely used.  These mechanics irl  pulled engines and overhauled them,   they should be able to remove a couple of alum panels and bolt some crap on.

Edited by JG1_Wittmann
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

One has to be careful - just because many authors write a thing doesn't neccessarily make it true. Especially in the decades just after the war, a lot of BS had been written due to the rather sparse supply of technical documentation. That stuff has been copied over and over again without the other authors challenging the initial mistake. After all author "X" was such an established person...

 

I completely agree with this statement. More data is always helpful

 

I think one should just take the wing as "changed" to accomodate all kinds of possible loadouts - ranging from additional guns in the outer wing-station, to a wide array of different bomb-loadouts. If it was really lighter and/ or stronger, one would have to see in original technicall documentation by Focke-Wulf. It probably was a bit stronger, but that's just a technical guess.

 

Yes, the only true way to get to the bottom would be to read the technical drafts for the new wing. However, the wing was changed for a purpose. Most authors citing the main cause was to offset weight creep, yet at the same time, strengthen the wing, which would be inline with the additional armament being added to the FW190 as the war progressed. I remember something from my reading that a couple of internal spars had to be removed to accommodate the additional reinforced ammo boxes for 20/30mm. I believe it was from Smith & Creek's 3 volume FW190 set. Once I get back home, I'll try to find that info and cite it.

 

For the others:

30mm guns (other than MK108s) haven't been used because they proved to be unsatisfactory for the mission. That is pretty much a convergence of solutions found with the RAF and USAAF, which both also preferred bombs and rockets over large-caliber guns*.

The double 20mm caused too much drag and hence the later solution of fitting a single MK108 instead of the twin 151/20-pod was favoured.

This has also been noted by many authors, too.

 

Quote

 

____

* The guns will slow you down on the way in AND on the way out. The bombs and rockets give you a much cleaner, faster bird for getting away and hence improving your chance of getting both the pilot and the plane back home. Also, the guns are only superior for attacking tanks, while bombs and cluster-munitions (sadly still not in the game) add a good deal of flexibility for attacking all the other targets.

 

I agree with this in most circumstances. However, there are times when having large caliber guns is preferable, eg tank busting in hs129 or me110g2.  I agree that the lack of AB bombs is sorely missed.

 

Nice discussion Brem. At this point, I'm still in favor of adding the additional load outs until I can dig a little deeper in library. For online, each server could determine what loadout is appropriate. Offline, I'd love to be able to attach mk103 and try to shoot bombers at distance :)

 

 

7 hours ago, 6FG_Big_Al said:

 

Well regarding this topic I can only quote Peter Rodeike here from his Book " Focke Wulf Jagdflugzeug. Fw 190 A Fw 190 'Dora' Ta 152 H"

On page 176 he showed two posts regarding this topic.

1)

Rodeikes comment on this order is simply that he couldn't find any photograpsh that show A6/A8's with this kit as well as he couldn't find any loss reports with the type mentioned. He concludes that only an unkown number of A-5/U12 and no other types made it to the fronlines.The other quote that he shows is from the Focke-Wulf development department

2)

 

In general, I haven't found any information that contradicts the documents listed by Rodeike. And I would assume that the R1 armament sets demanded by Galland were sent to the front in very small numbers at most and that the armament set itself disappeared from frontline service from April 44 at the latest. Whereby it is unclear whether and how many A6 or A7/A8 were equipped with it.

 

 

 

Thanks for the reference Al. I'll have to try and find that book. Can you please respond with the ISBN-13 number? Since my German is very poor, I would like to find an English translation.

 

Thanks,

HB

Edited by JV44HeinzBar
spacing
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

S!,

I had put out the question on another forum. Special thanks to Crimea_River for looking into his 3 set volume by Creek & Smith ( http://www.crecy.co.uk/focke-wulf-fw-190-volume-1-1938-43

 

This was his reply concerning R sets:

 

"Smith and Creek's Volume 1 of 3 has the following for the A-6:
R1: 60 aircraft were converted and the first were delivered to 3/JG11 end of November 43. several pics of prototype installations on an A6.
R2: Only one built, W. Nr. 530765 which continued to be a test bed aircraft for other mods. 2 pics.
R3: 3 pics of installation on prototype machine which was then passed on to I/SG151 at Oels. Damaged on 22 January 1945 designated as Black 28. Seems no others made.
R4: prototype tests on one airframe (V45 WNr 7347) between 1943 and late 44. No other numbers given.

No discussion of wing structural changes other than to accommodate the MG151/20.
"

 

I'll double check the reference once I get back home on Sunday.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

Some have commented on "historical accuracy" f .   It looks like others have posted  photo evidence,  in book form  etc  that  the A6  had several kits available to it  that put either a 108 or 103   30 , or twin 151's on it.  Now the 103  may be overkill, and not used much  but I would think that should be up to players to decide to choose or not.  The pods under the wing do make the fw's  perform less capable in the area of flying without a doubt much worse that  the devs have already made it.  However, a twin 20 pod, a 108 or a 103 pod make these ac absolutely devastating to bombers.    This plane is supposed to be part of the Battle of Normandy  and in the west front at that time the Germans were  much more concerned with anti-bomber  ac  than they were  Jabo  ac.   If this was called  battle of Ukraine,  some eastern area, all of these jabo variants would be quite fitting,  but, it's not an eastern front campaign, but western.   The ability to chose more anti-bomber armament, would actually be, much more historically accurate for Battle of Normandy,  than all the jabo variants we can use !

 

Now  let's have some discussion of the different jabo selections.  There is a 1.65 ATA option avail for this ac,  but only if you hamstring it with a bunch of jabo nonsense.  Does anyone here really believe that these ac  1.65, with boost were never field stripped of the nonsense and sent up as clean fighters ?     The selection where you can haul 250kg bombs under the wings, and 1 centerline on the coffin is  like the A8, ok,  but not one time  did someone think, hey, let's just got w/ a 250kg under each wing,   and not have the centerline,  drag central, bomb hauler ?   Those would be good options to have,  and should not be hard to implement.   I'll toss in a quick blurb about selecting your own specific tailored ammo loadout,  which absolutely  should be in game as well.   Not historical would be asking for something that wasn't available,  not eliminating it because someone thinks it doesn't perform well, or was rarely used.  These mechanics irl  pulled engines and overhauled them,   they should be able to remove a couple of alum panels and bolt some crap on.

 

Sooooo much misinformation here, so I'll keep my reply short:

  • MK 103s were never used operationally on Fw 190s.
  • All of those Jabo variants that you think only saw service in the East saw plenty of use in the West, all the way to the war's end.
  • 1.65 ata was only available on planes built like that from the factory, i.e., on G and F series planes. And, all those planes were sent to ground attack units. It wasn't as if JG 26 was receiving 190s with the 1.65 ata boost and all that extra armor, and Priller decided "nah, we don't need all that stuff, strip it out!" 
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Jade_Monkey said:

@JV44HeinzBar I have those three books, I definitely recommend them.

I have the 3 volume set back home. IMO, the definitive series on the FW190.

 

Perhaps, you can take a look through the volumes to see if the mk103 gondolas were used on the eastern front for tank busting? I don't recall that in the books, but there's a lot of information in those volumes.

 

HB

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JV44HeinzBar said:

Perhaps, you can take a look through the volumes to see if the mk103 gondolas were used on the eastern front for tank busting?

 

I can answer that and tell you that no, not a single Fw 190 was fitted with MK 103s for tankbusting in the East. MK 103s and the ammunition for them were hard enough to come by as it was, and all of those MK 103s were being fitted in Hs 129s.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Sooooo much misinformation here, so I'll keep my reply short:

  • MK 103s were never used operationally on Fw 190s.
  • All of those Jabo variants that you think only saw service in the East saw plenty of use in the West, all the way to the war's end.
  • 1.65 ata was only available on planes built like that from the factory, i.e., on G and F series planes. And, all those planes were sent to ground attack units. It wasn't as if JG 26 was receiving 190s with the 1.65 ata boost and all that extra armor, and Priller decided "nah, we don't need all that stuff, strip it out!" 

 

I'll  address each bullet directly

1) Mk 108,   ( Also a 30MM cannon )   was used on 190's  and apparently some1 agreed or we wouldn't have them on the A8. We have the twin 151 pods on A5, saw a post where some of those A6's with twin pods were delivered in 43

2)I never claimed there were no Jabo Units in the West,  but I do believe there was much more emphasis placed on anti-bomber roles in the West,  than was in the East

3)I never tried to say the 1.65 ata engines were not from the factory.  I never mentioned anything about removing armor, etc.  I did speculate that the supposed center bomb carrier and the wing hard points could be removed.  In fact,  you can actually  choose loadouts, in game that do not have the wing hardpoints or the center bomb rack.  So you seem to suggest that the jabo units that got them,  only had 1.65 ata engines  if all of that  was on the ac.  So were they sent some planes and told they had to leave the bomb racks on always,  and say got seperate ones  for ground attack  without all of those racks, but only with a standard engine ?  They never flew with the center rack and just wing bombs,  only allowed to fly with the center carrier installed ?   If that's the logic then I guess we should not be allowed to select how much fuel we carry.  No mention of JG26 was made by me,  and I don't know, maybe since they were so short on AC on  missions  it could be they had to provide there own cover flights ? The fact of the matter is armed  forces have used  equipment designed for one role, in a different role  many times over.  Now it's real simple, at least to me being mechanically inclined, and working as a mechanic,  that removing those centerline racks, removing the wing hardpoints and replacing the wheel well covers  would take an hour, maybe 2,  and I would bet it probably took someone that did it before, less time.  Because I can't point to a book is ridiculous, the term field mod  should be self explanatory.  To suggest that A6's  with the 1.65 ATA engine  never flew like that is ridiculous.

 

It's nice that we have this normandy coming out.  I pre-ordered just like alot of others.  To make the weapons choices so limited, when they were so varied is a let-down, when the reason for the limit does not match up with what was available

Edited by JG1_Wittmann
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Han unpinned this topic

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
×
×
  • Create New...