Jump to content

Fw190A6 doubts


3./JG15_Kampf
 Share

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

That is what I understood as well. He used either an A7 or A8 machine on 6th of june. Nevertheless, since we already have the A8 with BoBP, I am more than happy we got the A6 with BoN, because it was still quite common in the 1st half of 1944.

 

image.png.99380db279f2ac46a3d2ff5d5580d7eb.pngimage.png.f9094bffe2e4dff373da188b9ff7dd3d.png

 

In reality though, we all know it, he used a Bf-108 😉

 

image.png.e4d503c271a5ae4316c04715214a0ea6.png

Let not forget that 190A8 (A6) was almost untouchable at low level. Anyway what Priller did was incredible and outstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NightFighter
1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

 

You might want to do a bit more research on the Mossie.

My bad, I was talking about fighter vs fighter combat. Sorry for not specifying. I just used bomload as one of the metrics for differences.

 

Along those lines, the P-38 is faster, climbs better, is more manueverable, along with having similar bombload and range (although less without drop tanks)

Edited by NightFighter
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

The Fw 190A-6 was being phased out in April.

 

I'm thinking the Normandy career will begin in Jan/Feb '44 and end in August (to avoid overlapping with Bodenplatte's early phases). So there would be at least a few months where the A-6 is the default Fw-190 in service.

 

1 hour ago, =AW=Q_Walker said:

I do agree with you, I was more talking to the fact of Normandy still being able to have a 5/5 split. I definitely see it becoming more difficult to have a balanced split after this module.

 

The difficulty will depend on the theaters involved.

 

Let's say the next module must be Eastern Front '44-45. Its lineup would look something like this:

 

Germany: 109G-10. Fw-190F-8. He-177 bomber. Ju-188 recon plane. Yeah, I know the game doesn't have recon planes, but a heavy fighter version would be pointless.

 

Russia: Yak-3. La-7. IL-10. Tu-2.

 

Collector planes:

 

Germany: Ta-152.

 

Russia: Yak-9U.

 

This lineup wouldn't entail a ridiculous amount of work. Only 2 of the planes (Tu-2, He-177) would be brand-new to the series. 3 would be heavily modified versions of what we already have (IL-10, Ta-152, Ju-188). The rest would be pretty close variants of things we already have. If the He-177 was scrapped, there'd be even less to worry about. But that would also make the German selection pretty dull.

 

The only other modules to do after that would be a Mediterranean, France '40, and maybe the BoB (but unlikely). Since there are plenty of gaps in early war plane variants, these lineups wouldn't be too difficult to keep balanced; especially with the addition of French and Italian planes. It's only mid to late war variants that are thoroughly covered.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

migmadmarine

I could also see the 109G6AS and G14AS being added in future packages to meet the fighter requirement for late war packages.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

I'm thinking the Normandy career will begin in Jan/Feb '44 and end in August (to avoid overlapping with Bodenplatte's early phases). So there would be at least a few months where the A-6 is the default Fw-190 in service.

 

 

The difficulty will depend on the theaters involved.

The career will be starting in April, 1944 and will end in August.

 

As far as the difficulty in plane sets, it will definitely depend on theater for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

Let's say the next module must be Eastern Front '44-45. Its lineup would look something like this:

 

Germany: 109G-10. Fw-190F-8. He-177 bomber. Ju-188 recon plane. Yeah, I know the game doesn't have recon planes, but a heavy fighter version would be pointless.

 

Russia: Yak-3. La-7. IL-10. Tu-2.

 

Collector planes:

 

Germany: Ta-152.

 

Russia: Yak-9U.

 

We already have a Fw-190F-8. So the FW-190 would have to be an A9.

 

Dornier Do-217 is a possible alternative to the Ju-188 (although I think I'd prefer a 188). The He-177 isn't possible (no four engined heavies unfortunately).

 

Il-10 is a bit late to see use (as is the Ta-152), but I could see it being included (or a He-162... which at least was nominally operational). Some evidence suggests that the P-63 might have been used for the advance on Berlin (even though it wasn't supposed to), and there are a number of earlier aircraft (e.g. Il-4, Ju-87D5) that were still in production or service in '44 (but aren't modelled yet).

 

It is the most likely next scenario (followed by BoB and Korea)... I'd personally like to see 'anniversary editions' which add maybe two aircraft (and two AI aircraft) to each existing module and improve the map/campaign content... (with an option for both existing users to upgrade, and new users to purchase instead of purchasing the platinum editions).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

l_commando
6 hours ago, NightFighter said:

The Devs picked the P-38J over the P-38L for bodenplatte because it could also be used at Normandy in the earlier setting. The P-38L would have technically been a better choice for Bodenplatte becuause it was the later model and the most produced, but the Devs picked the J variant so it could be used in the new Normandy DLC, especially for multiplayer.

P-38L's weren't sent to NW Europe. They all went to Italy, the South Pacific, and the Aleutians. Though I wouldn't mind a modification to remove the dive flaps in the in-game P-38 to make it a more Normandy appropriate J-10 or J-15

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NightFighter

@l_commando, yup, my bad. The source I was reading said that the L was delivered right around D-Day, but they were meaning the Photo-Recon converted P-38Ls, which were starting to be built. As well some of the other interesting versions, such as "Pathfinders"

Edited by NightFighter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, l_commando said:

P-38L's weren't sent to NW Europe. They all went to Italy, the South Pacific, and the Aleutians. Though I wouldn't mind a modification to remove the dive flaps in the in-game P-38 to make it a more Normandy appropriate J-10 or J-15

 

There actually were Ls sent to NW Europe, such as this one: http://www.americanairmuseum.com/aircraft/14911.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-=PHX=-SuperEtendard
6 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

You might want to do a bit more research on the Mossie.

 

6 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Beat me to it Gambit.  While the Lightening is good in the attack role, it certainly is no Mosquito.

 

Be sure.


To be honest they are quite similar. The Mosquito we are getting can carry either 4 x 500lb bombs or 8x rockets + 2 x 500lb bombs. The P-38 can carry 6 x 500lb, 4x 1000lb, 2 x 2000lb even, or 6 x rockets + 2 x 1000lb.  P-38 has the more versatile loadouts and higher total bomb weight.

About speed they are similar at the deck, but up high the P-38 easily outpaces it with it's turbocharged Allisons, remember the Mosquito FB Mk VI has single stage two speed Merlins so they fall off in performance at mid altitudes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

 


To be honest they are quite similar. The Mosquito we are getting can carry either 4 x 500lb bombs or 8x rockets + 2 x 500lb bombs. The P-38 can carry 6 x 500lb, 4x 1000lb, 2 x 2000lb even, or 6 x rockets + 2 x 1000lb.  P-38 has the more versatile loadouts and higher total bomb weight.

About speed they are similar at the deck, but up high the P-38 easily outpaces it with it's turbocharged Allisons, remember the Mosquito FB Mk VI has single stage two speed Merlins so they fall off in performance at mid altitudes.

 

There is no comparison with regard to forward firepower, and if we're talking night fighters and Intruders, the Mossie was in most ways without peer.

 

All of the "more versatile loadouts" etc becomes meaningless when purpose/mission is considered. You'd have to point to some weakness/shortcoming that became apparent with regard to the Mossie and fulfilling the mission it was utilized for. The Mossie also had superior range...by far, not to mention the electronics it possessed for it's night roles which the P-38 obviously lacked.

Edited by Gambit21
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=621=Samikatz

Our Mosquito is also going to have the Mollins gun variant, don't forget. It's going to be an excellent sub hunter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mitthrawnuruodo
28 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

To be honest they are quite similar.

 

The Mosquito had significant advantages that aren't apparent in games.

 

Besides the four Hispano cannon, our variant can carry an additional crewman and internal bombs.

 

Different purposes require different design decisions, so I wouldn't say that one was generally better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

We already have a Fw-190F-8. So the FW-190 would have to be an A9.

 

Dornier Do-217 is a possible alternative to the Ju-188 (although I think I'd prefer a 188). The He-177 isn't possible (no four engined heavies unfortunately).

 

Il-10 is a bit late to see use (as is the Ta-152), but I could see it being included (or a He-162... which at least was nominally operational). Some evidence suggests that the P-63 might have been used for the advance on Berlin

 

Do we have the F-8 with the low altitude boost though? I mean this one (from Wikipedia):

 

"Fw 190 F-8

Based on the A-8 Fighter, having a slightly modified injector on the compressor which allowed for increased performance at lower altitudes for several minutes. Armament of the Fw 190 F-8 was two 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon in the wing roots and two 13 mm (0.51 in) MG 131 machine guns above the engine. It was outfited with an ETC 501 Bomb rack as centerline mount and four ETC 50 bomb racks as underwing mounts."

 

Could also put the larger canopy on it. But yeah, barring that, an A-9 would be acceptable.

 

As for the Do-217, another slowish bomber in '45 would be even more suicidal than having it in '44. At least the He-177 would have a chance to avoid being intercepted; I know 4 engines are a problem, but I figured the odd configuration of the engines might get around it somehow. Maybe by counting the engines as 2 giant units instead of 4 separate entities for the purposes of simulation calculations. The Do-217, specifically the naval attack versions, would be best suited to a Mediterranean map (circa '43?) in my opinion.

 

Without the novelty of an He-177, I think the Ta-152 would become that much more important as a collector option; and it did claim at least a few Russian fighters in its limited operational history (providing a small association with an Eastern Front setting).

 

While the He-162 would be welcome, I don't see it as a viable plane for the basic lineup in an Eastern Front package; simply because it's a jet and a rare one at that. The Ar-234 is just as rare in terms of numbers built, of course, but also a collector plane presumably for that reason.

 

I wouldn't mind a P-63 in lieu of a Russian two-engine plane. But I definitely want the IL-10 at any cost.

 

5 hours ago, =AW=Q_Walker said:

The career will be starting in April, 1944 and will end in August.

 

Really? I wasn't aware. Seems a little late to start, given that, to my understanding, pretty much the whole of '44 prior to D-Day was one continuous air offensive designed to destroy the Luftwaffe.

 

I assumed there'd be more early '44 phases included as a run up to Normandy. Essentially just endless air sweeps for Allied careers.

Edited by oc2209
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

Really? I wasn't aware. Seems a little late to start, given that, to my understanding, pretty much the whole of '44 prior to D-Day was one continuous air offensive designed to destroy the Luftwaffe.

 

I assumed there'd be more early '44 phases included as a run up to Normandy. Essentially just endless air sweeps for Allied careers.

Yeah I was a bit surprised as well with the date selection, but I'm sure there are many reasons for the decision. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, =AW=Q_Walker said:

Yeah I was a bit surprised as well with the date selection, but I'm sure there are many reasons for the decision. 

 

The only thing I can think of, is that a future module's career would intrude on it.

 

For instance, a late '43 to early '44 Mediterranean career.

 

Using that time frame instead of an earlier one would allow inclusion of the MC.205, or (implausibly) the Re.2005, or the G.55. It would be essential to use Italian planes for the Axis in this period, as most of the likely German ones are already in the game. However, technical data and surviving examples of the Italian planes might be even scarcer than Japanese planes. Not sure.

 

What I really wonder now, is where a Russian/German career will fit. Bodenplatte ends sometime in '45 (never played it to the end; I know some units end well before the final listed day in the career), Normandy will run into Bodenplatte to take up most of '44. Meaning this will be the first time, possibly, career paths will be mutually exclusive. A Luftwaffe pilot might have to choose between Bodenplatte and whatever the Eastern Front map is called.

 

I guess you could start in Bodenplatte in September '44, go all the way to December, say, and then transfer over to the Eastern Front where that module would run until May '45.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-=PHX=-SuperEtendard
5 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

There is no comparison with regard to forward firepower, and if we're talking night fighters and Intruders, the Mossie was in most ways without peer.

 

All of the "more versatile loadouts" etc becomes meaningless when purpose/mission is considered. You'd have to point to some weakness/shortcoming that became apparent with regard to the Mossie and fulfilling the mission it was utilized for. The Mossie also had superior range...by far, not to mention the electronics in needed which the P-38 lacked.

 

4 hours ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

 

The Mosquito had significant advantages that aren't apparent in games.

 

Besides the four Hispano cannon, our variant can carry an additional crewman and internal bombs.

 

Different purposes require different design decisions, so I wouldn't say that one was generally better.


I'm talking from an in game stand point, and specific to the variant we are getting.

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

 


I'm talking from an in game stand point, and specific to the variant we are getting.

 

Nothing changes really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really?

 

Yes, the Mossie has the upper hand in firepower.

Night fighting is not modelled in the sim right now, the Mossie has no advantage here at all.

The FB Mk.VI we are getting never had a bombsight so it will have to go in on targets like any other fighter bomber.

Superior range hardly plays a role in IL-2, maps are just not big enough to exploit any range advantage the Mossie might have.

An additional crewman (without a gun to man) means nothing in the game, he's just dead weight.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-=PHX=-SuperEtendard
7 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Nothing changes really.


No mossie level bombers or night fighters in the game, loadout versatility comes in handy for online missions where you can tackle different objectives over the course of one play session without having to change the plane. Extra firepower is nice and an advantage for eventual air to air encounters, but for air to ground there isn't a target that wouldn't be able to be killed by 38's armament yet vulnerable to mossie's quad hispanos.

So all in all very similar I would say, FB Mk VI isn't miles ahead really. If we were comparing it to an early war attacker I would agree, but at the end of the war you have solid equivalents from most nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

II./JG77_Manu*

For me it's not only the A6, but also the G6 late, Ju-88 and P-47 Razorback that are preventing me from buying that expansion. All those 4 aircraft are close to be copycats of already existing aircraft. So far with each new module we always had very new, unique aircraft being included, or at least upgrades of existing ones (like A5 over A3). For me there is no sense to fly the A6 or the G6 late, when the A8 and G-14 have been around during Normandy already. Same goes for the razorback. 

 

I'd like the Mossie, 410, Typhoon and Arado since they really bring something new to the table but not for the pricepoint of a whole new module. So Normandy ended up being the first module not pre-ordered by myself, I'd rather wait for at least a 50% (or rather a 66%) off. 

 

I know the arguments of people like "not everyone owns every module and they still have to get their 190s and 109s" but I don't know if this has to be a must. The number of people going for Normandy but not owning Bodenplatte is probably minimal. I think Normandy really missed the opportunity to flesh out the Western front aircraft, like the Do-217 and He-177 already mentioned by @oc2209 a flyable B-25 or the Hellcat (which was used closer to the Normandy / Belgium, then the A3 to Stalingrad).

 

I also don't get the arguments of complexity - BoS and BoM both had 2 multi-crew bombers each, 3 of them had to be build up from scratch (He-111, Ju-88, Pe-2). In the next  expansion (Kuban) we got one new bomber from scratch (A20) and that's it. Since Bodenplatte we don't get any new multi-crew bombers what so ever (not counting the Arado since it has only the pilot position to model). This is a clear decline in my opinion compared to the start of the franchise. We are still paying more then for an AAA game, can't be too much to expect at least 2 new complex modules for that pricepoint. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

I'd like the Mossie, 410, Typhoon and Arado since they really bring something new to the table but not for the pricepoint of a whole new module. So Normandy ended up being the first module not pre-ordered by myself, I'd rather wait for at least a 50% (or rather a 66%) off. 

 

If you look at the price of planes in other sims, I tend to see it like this: a modules gets us 4 new planes + a map (which is excellent value), and the devs throw in a couple of minor variants to fill up the historical roster for free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bremspropeller

Ahh, the fighter-pilots trying to understand an attack airplane. Priceless...

 

The Mosquito VI wasn't used as night-fighter, but as a night-intruder, which is a different mission and requires no radar.

The second man is only dead weight if you can't die for real, which is a limitation of the game, like many other things.

Edited by Bremspropeller
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may want to actually read more than just 1 or 2 forum posts before going full smartypants.

In the context of the game the 2nd crew member is dead weight, period. Nothing more, nothing less has been said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bremspropeller

I have read the whole thread, so don't smartypant me.

Your perspective is too narrow and too fighter-oriented/ game-setup minded to include what other people might enjoy. That includes flying around with a dead-weight-dude right next to them.

 

Yes, the P-38 can haul bungloads of bombs, but it rarely flew with those loadouts.

The Mosquito flew lots of missions single- or two-ship, low level and deep into enemy-territory. The only single-ship Lightnings were recce aircraft.

 

The Mossie will be a faster A-20 with a shart-ton more fire coming from the front end. Including rockets. So it's going to be quite useful.

Especially when flown in pairs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

For me it's not only the A6, but also the G6 late, Ju-88 and P-47 Razorback that are preventing me from buying that expansion. All those 4 aircraft are close to be copycats of already existing aircraft. So far with each new module we always had very new, unique aircraft being included, or at least upgrades of existing ones (like A5 over A3). For me there is no sense to fly the A6 or the G6 late, when the A8 and G-14 have been around during Normandy already. Same goes for the razorback. 

 

I'd like the Mossie, 410, Typhoon and Arado since they really bring something new to the table but not for the pricepoint of a whole new module. So Normandy ended up being the first module not pre-ordered by myself, I'd rather wait for at least a 50% (or rather a 66%) off. 

 

I know the arguments of people like "not everyone owns every module and they still have to get their 190s and 109s" but I don't know if this has to be a must. The number of people going for Normandy but not owning Bodenplatte is probably minimal. I think Normandy really missed the opportunity to flesh out the Western front aircraft, like the Do-217 and He-177 already mentioned by @oc2209 a flyable B-25 or the Hellcat (which was used closer to the Normandy / Belgium, then the A3 to Stalingrad).

 

I also don't get the arguments of complexity - BoS and BoM both had 2 multi-crew bombers each, 3 of them had to be build up from scratch (He-111, Ju-88, Pe-2). In the next  expansion (Kuban) we got one new bomber from scratch (A20) and that's it. Since Bodenplatte we don't get any new multi-crew bombers what so ever (not counting the Arado since it has only the pilot position to model). This is a clear decline in my opinion compared to the start of the franchise. We are still paying more then for an AAA game, can't be too much to expect at least 2 new complex modules for that pricepoint. 

 

Compared to a VR G2 reverb and the PC/hardware required to run it  BoN seems quite cheap. 

 

Comparing BoX to a real AAA title is fallacy the advertising budget is probably more than the entire BoX series. 

This type of product is very niche in comparison. 

Maybe people think that a module is expensive, I have the view that you are also paying for the massive amount of new features and updates that keep on coming to the whole series. 

 

A scan of game update section will give an idea of how many "free" upgrades we have got which effect every module. 

 

Everyone is course free to choose what they want to pay or what value they put on a product, but if everyone waited for sales this niche would dry up

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

II./JG77_Manu*
14 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

 

Compared to a VR G2 reverb and the PC/hardware required to run it  BoN seems quite cheap. 

 

Comparing BoX to a real AAA title is fallacy the advertising budget is probably more than the entire BoX series. 

This type of product is very niche in comparison. 

Maybe people think that a module is expensive, I have the view that you are also paying for the massive amount of new features and updates that keep on coming to the whole series. 

 

A scan of game update section will give an idea of how many "free" upgrades we have got which effect every module. 

 

Everyone is course free to choose what they want to pay or what value they put on a product, but if everyone waited for sales this niche would dry up

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

Well the IL2 franchise is by far not the only game I am playing in VR (currently i don't play it at all), so that is a rather bad comparison. No one is comparing the price of a Tesla software upgrade to the price of the hardware (the actual car!), that just does not make any sense. 

 

I do not only compare it to other AAA titles, I could also compare it to other niche simulation titles - like for example Post Scriptum, which costs around a third of a single IL2 module and also puts massive effort into modeling (maps, gear) historically correct.

I also compare it to the other Il2 modules (BoS, BoM, BoK, BoBp) which brought a lot more in terms of value, for me anyway. Getting one(!) module in a sale is not "drying up" a niche in any way, it's merely a hint for the Devs, that something just doesn't feel as worthy as the other modules.

Btw, I also can't see any BoN decal in your profile..

 

  

2 hours ago, blue_max said:

If you look at the price of planes in other sims, I tend to see it like this: a modules gets us 4 new planes + a map (which is excellent value), and the devs throw in a couple of minor variants to fill up the historical roster for free.

Well, I think it is hard to compare to planes in other sims.

In DCS the modules (being fully clickable) have a lot more fidelity to them, so a higher price is justified - that said, I wouldn't and didn't buy a DCS module on full price so far.

In War Thunder, there is less fidelity on modules, but the aircraft are totally free (apart from spending time to unlock).

In Cliffs, the only one comparable to IL2 Great Battles, you pay less for a module, seeing the big amount of aircraft they added for Tobruk alone. 

As I see it, there is no other sim out to compare. 

Edited by II./JG77_Manu*
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

The Mosquito VI wasn't used as night-fighter, but as a night-intruder, which is a different mission and requires no radar.

 

Technically, a few VI were equipped with radar homing systems and deployed as night fighters... so even the VI was used like that, even if it wasn't a dedicated night fighter. Obviously our variant lacks that equipment.

 

Part of me would like to see antennas fitted to a bunch of AI aircraft as an option though.

 

4 hours ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

For me it's not only the A6, but also the G6 late, Ju-88 and P-47 Razorback that are preventing me from buying that expansion. All those 4 aircraft are close to be copycats of already existing aircraft. So far with each new module we always had very new, unique aircraft being included, or at least upgrades of existing ones (like A5 over A3). For me there is no sense to fly the A6 or the G6 late, when the A8 and G-14 have been around during Normandy already. Same goes for the razorback. 

 

I'd like the Mossie, 410, Typhoon and Arado since they really bring something new to the table but not for the pricepoint of a whole new module.

 

For the record - we've had past modules release the Bf-109F2 and Bf-109F4 (which is a smaller change)... and I think that the amount of new content is technically greater in a number of ways in BoN. The A6 is more different than it looks... particularly details like the bomb dropping mechanisms, the armour etc. The non-bubble-canopy American fighters may seem redundant, but they do handle differently, are slightly faster - and are very important historically... they couldn't be ignored.

 

I think the one where your claim has some validity is the G-6 late, as it is very similar to the G-6 early and G-14... however, it does that by being one of the most flexible Bf-109 models for variations... and basically represents many sub-variants in between those two. So it is actually a great deal - it just overshadows the G-6 early and the G-14 (rather than the other way around).

 

All in all - I think it is actually the best deal so far.

Edited by Avimimus
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

II./JG77_Manu*
1 minute ago, Avimimus said:

For the record - we've had past modules release the Bf-109F2 and Bf-109F4 (which is a smaller change)... and I think that the amount of new content is technically greater in a number of ways in BoN. The A6 is more different than it looks... particularly details like the bomb dropping mechanisms, the armour etc. The non-bubble-canopy American fighters may seem redundant, but they do handle differently, are slightly faster - and are very important historically... they couldn't be ignored.

 

I think the one where your claim has some validity is the G-6 late, as it is very similar to the G-6 early and G-14... however, it does that by being one of the most flexible Bf-109 models for variations... and basically represents many sub-variants in between those two. So it is actually a great deal - it just overshadows the G-6 early and the G-14 (rather than the other way around).

 

Agreed, we had this before, but never more then 1 or 2 copycat-aircraft, now we have 4 and that is just too much for me.

 

And obviously, my claim is related to the chronological order of the module releases. I basically agree on all your statements, especially the versatility of the G6-late. But if you already own the G4, G6 and G14, it still does not really feel worthy as a customer. I don't wanna bash this module too much, I just feel that there could have been a lot better / more interesting expansions, which is always subjective to a certain extent. 

For example, I would have no problem at all to spend more then 100 bucks for a pacific or Mediterranean scenario with 10 new/unique aircraft, but I have problems paying 80 (or even 50) bucks for this Normandy expansion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, oc2209 said:

As for the Do-217, another slowish bomber in '45 would be even more suicidal than having it in '44. At least the He-177 would have a chance to avoid being intercepted; I know 4 engines are a problem, but I figured the odd configuration of the engines might get around it somehow. Maybe by counting the engines as 2 giant units instead of 4 separate entities for the purposes of simulation calculations. The Do-217, specifically the naval attack versions, would be best suited to a Mediterranean map (circa '43?) in my opinion.

 

Alas, the number of propellers isn't the issue... but the number of gunner positions I believe. Of course, aircraft operating at night or with fewer gunners (e.g. Lancasters had 1-3 gunners) could probably be modelled in that case. So a lot would depend on how the aircraft are used.

 

The Do-217 was shifted to being a night bomber by '44 (as was the case with all twin engined propeller bombers) in order to have some protection. This is a major reason behind the Do-217K having a redesigned cockpit.

 

The earlier Do-217E is actually quite suitable for the Normandy Map in the Dieppe era ('42-'43) where they were used in daylight and on anti-shipping missions. They were still pretty vulnerable though. We have most of the planes for this era but we're missing some variants (Early Spit IX and early Typhoon; Fw-190A4 and Mustang I are also possibilities, as well as British versions of the A-20).

 

The Ju-188 is also an interesting prospect. It is closer to the Do-217K in terms of having good visibility, but it lacks the larger bomb load of the Do-217. It makes up for this with an extra turret featuring a 20mm cannon though (maximum armament being 2x13mm to the rear, and 1x20mm to the rear, with the option of one more firing forward).

 

 

9 hours ago, oc2209 said:

Without the novelty of an He-177, I think the Ta-152 would become that much more important as a collector option; and it did claim at least a few Russian fighters in its limited operational history (providing a small association with an Eastern Front setting).

 

While the He-162 would be welcome, I don't see it as a viable plane for the basic lineup in an Eastern Front package; simply because it's a jet and a rare one at that. The Ar-234 is just as rare in terms of numbers built, of course, but also a collector plane presumably for that reason.

 

I wouldn't mind a P-63 in lieu of a Russian two-engine plane. But I definitely want the IL-10 at any cost.

 

The Ar-234 appeared in service as a reconnaissance aircraft fairly early on and so repeated use as a bomber. The He-162 was produced in large numbers, but these lacked engines and then lacked fuel - almost none of them were ever declared operational. So we are talking about hundreds of sorties from '44 onwards vs. two sorties in late '45. This makes the He-162 more of a 'what-if' engine development was smoother or fuel reserves were larger. I have doubts about the ability of the Ta-152H at the altitudes we operate at, and the Ta-152C was even further from service than the He-162... that said, any of these aircraft (including the Il-10) would be included as technical studies than as being operationally relevant. I find the He-162 interesting as it shows a strange mixture of desperation and ambition, of high technology and wood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ww2fighter20
4 hours ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

For me it's not only the A6, but also the G6 late, Ju-88 and P-47 Razorback that are preventing me from buying that expansion.

The Ju88C6a is quite different from the Ju88A4 since it's the dayfighter version with 1x20mm + 3x7.7 in the nose and an 2x20mm gunpod, it can only carry 10x50kg bombs.

It's possible we might get the BMW engines as mod which turns it into the Ju88R-2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CountZero
1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

 

Alas, the number of propellers isn't the issue... but the number of gunner positions I believe. Of course, aircraft operating at night or with fewer gunners (e.g. Lancasters had 1-3 gunners) could probably be modelled in that case. So a lot would depend on how the aircraft are used.

 

The Do-217 was shifted to being a night bomber by '44 (as was the case with all twin engined propeller bombers) in order to have some protection. This is a major reason behind the Do-217K having a redesigned cockpit.

 

The earlier Do-217E is actually quite suitable for the Normandy Map in the Dieppe era ('42-'43) where they were used in daylight and on anti-shipping missions. They were still pretty vulnerable though. We have most of the planes for this era but we're missing some variants (Early Spit IX and early Typhoon; Fw-190A4 and Mustang I are also possibilities, as well as British versions of the A-20).

 

The Ju-188 is also an interesting prospect. It is closer to the Do-217K in terms of having good visibility, but it lacks the larger bomb load of the Do-217. It makes up for this with an extra turret featuring a 20mm cannon though (maximum armament being 2x13mm to the rear, and 1x20mm to the rear, with the option of one more firing forward).

 

 

 

The Ar-234 appeared in service as a reconnaissance aircraft fairly early on and so repeated use as a bomber. The He-162 was produced in large numbers, but these lacked engines and then lacked fuel - almost none of them were ever declared operational. So we are talking about hundreds of sorties from '44 onwards vs. two sorties in late '45. This makes the He-162 more of a 'what-if' engine development was smoother or fuel reserves were larger. I have doubts about the ability of the Ta-152H at the altitudes we operate at, and the Ta-152C was even further from service than the He-162... that said, any of these aircraft (including the Il-10) would be included as technical studies than as being operationally relevant. I find the He-162 interesting as it shows a strange mixture of desperation and ambition, of high technology and wood.

 

Do-217 was missed chance for BoN as it played some part , later its hard to add them. For He-162 you cant have them in game as you wont be able to make SP missions for them as even with late east front Berlin wont be on map because of game limitations, and they were based west of Berlin as far i know, same for Ta-152Hs, and they cant just force them in DLC like with Ar-234 for BoN, that atleast have bases it operated from in BoBp map. It would be better to go with 6v4  or 7v3 then force 5v5 all the time by ading airplanes that should not be in game just for balance.

Edited by CountZero
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BlitzPig_EL
1 hour ago, CUJO_1970 said:

No need for doubt - she likes to blow stuff up:

 

1712967127_IL2BOS316.thumb.jpg.fa9a3191f59d3e2b18cf31b774d83f70.jpg1133691229_IL2BOS317.thumb.jpg.89fd85110e8c29c17aec515a21ccee38.jpg1300393290_IL2BOS318.thumb.jpg.a6e59c45d8be578fd03d226d082e908f.jpg

As a ground pounder, I approve of this message.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FTC_Mephisto
16 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

 

Dornier Do-217 is a possible alternative to the Ju-188 (although I think I'd prefer a 188). The He-177 isn't possible (no four engined heavies unfortunately).

 

 

I heard this couple of times now, is there a positive confirmation from devs that four engines are not possible in BoX?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ShamrockOneFive
9 minutes ago, ACG_Mephisto said:

 

I heard this couple of times now, is there a positive confirmation from devs that four engines are not possible in BoX?

 

So far as I know, there isn't. It just keeps being endlessly repeated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CountZero
19 minutes ago, ACG_Mephisto said:

 

I heard this couple of times now, is there a positive confirmation from devs that four engines are not possible in BoX?

Problem is not number of engines, se how many more P-38s you can place in mission compared to He-111s without expiriancing slow motion.

Problme is number of crew positions and gunners are to big so you cant even have big number of them, and then you also have to detail model all thouse crew positions. So why make B-17 B-24 Halifax and so on... just to be able to have 2 flights of 4 and 4 enemy fighters attacking them while 4 frendly fighters cover them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Karaya said:

Really?

 

Yes, the Mossie has the upper hand in firepower.

Night fighting is not modelled in the sim right now, the Mossie has no advantage here at all.

The FB Mk.VI we are getting never had a bombsight so it will have to go in on targets like any other fighter bomber.

Superior range hardly plays a role in IL-2, maps are just not big enough to exploit any range advantage the Mossie might have.

An additional crewman (without a gun to man) means nothing in the game, he's just dead weight.

 

I was talking about real life more or less.

5 hours ago, Karaya said:

You may want to actually read more than just 1 or 2 forum posts before going full smartypants.

In the context of the game the 2nd crew member is dead weight, period. Nothing more, nothing less has been said.

 

You might want to go back and read the thread.

Also, the 2nd crew member does not comprise any "weight" of any sort, dead or otherwise. He's simply a 3D model sitting next to your little head camera in the cockpit.

He doesn't affect your ability to conduct your mission one way or the other. So "dead weight"....not so much.

8 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:


No mossie level bombers or night fighters in the game, loadout versatility comes in handy for online missions where you can tackle different objectives over the course of one play session without having to change the plane. Extra firepower is nice and an advantage for eventual air to air encounters, but for air to ground there isn't a target that wouldn't be able to be killed by 38's armament yet vulnerable to mossie's quad hispanos.

So all in all very similar I would say, FB Mk VI isn't miles ahead really. If we were comparing it to an early war attacker I would agree, but at the end of the war you have solid equivalents from most nations.

 

In game, and artificial environment is one thing, real life and actual roles is another. So we're having 2 different conversations here I think.

In the sim, the I16 might better at ducking between houses, barns and trees at 4 meters off the ground, therefore the best aircraft if that's my measuring stick.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ACG_Mephisto said:

I heard this couple of times now, is there a positive confirmation from devs that four engines are not possible in BoX?

 

1 hour ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

So far as I know, there isn't. It just keeps being endlessly repeated.

53 minutes ago, CountZero said:

Problem is not number of engines, se how many more P-38s you can place in mission compared to He-111s without expiriancing slow motion.

Problme is number of crew positions and gunners are to big so you cant even have big number of them, and then you also have to detail model all thouse crew positions. So why make B-17 B-24 Halifax and so on... just to be able to have 2 flights of 4 and 4 enemy fighters attacking them while 4 frendly fighters cover them.

 

As CountZero said... not only are there more engines to be simulated, but there are a lot more gunners. This is mainly true of the American daylight formations. Even if one could optimise thing by culling AI and other details from bombers that were out of range... there are still the bombers that are within range of the player. I looked into it and they were dense enough that one has to model a minimum of 24-36 aircraft within firing range of any given attacking fighter!

 

And - Yes, Jason has commented on this at least two or three times... he'd love to do daylight raids but it would require more advanced hardware (or a reduction in fidelity).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

=621=Samikatz
1 hour ago, ACG_Mephisto said:

 

I heard this couple of times now, is there a positive confirmation from devs that four engines are not possible in BoX?

 

It would be extremely surprising that there would suddenly be this limitation after Rise of Flight on the old version of the engine had a four engined bomber

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...