Bilbo_Baggins Posted March 2, 2024 Posted March 2, 2024 Didn't this machine have a 30mm MK108 firing through the propeller hub? On those pictures that hole looks way too small for a 30mm to fit through the spinner.
AEthelraedUnraed Posted March 2, 2024 Posted March 2, 2024 7 hours ago, Avimimus said: So you are saying we're on a slippery slope towards the He-162 being acceptable? Given that a lot more Salamanders were produced, they were active for a similar amount of time, and they saw a similar amount of combat (although records are sketchy for both), I dare say that we're well past the stage of "slippery slopes".
Razorback Posted March 2, 2024 Posted March 2, 2024 Do you recall the accounts given by the two P51 pilots? They saw this plane on the runway taking off, tried to bounce it, and could not catch it. I have that correct? I can not remember the book.
FlyingNutcase Posted March 2, 2024 Posted March 2, 2024 The most bootafull of them all. Only 25 made? Wow, that's really crazy.
Juri_JS Posted March 2, 2024 Posted March 2, 2024 (edited) 1 hour ago, FlyingNutcase said: The most bootafull of them all. Only 25 made? Wow, that's really crazy. I think this is only for the H-1 version. Production numbers for the H-0 version were higher. Both versions were flown by JG 301 and apparently they were almost identical. Edited March 2, 2024 by Juri_JS 1
Ringlett Posted March 2, 2024 Posted March 2, 2024 (edited) Only perhaps 20 - 25 of them made it to JG 301 Between December 1944 and January 1945, 18 Ta 152 H aircraft (W.Nr.150001-018) were built and between January and April 1945 only 24 more machines (W.Nr.150019-168) A total of 67 Ta 152 machines of all variants C, E, H (including prototypes) were produced, of which three in October 1944, 12 in November, 19 in December, 23 in January 1945 and 10 in February. Edited March 2, 2024 by ATA_Ringlett 1
novicebutdeadly Posted March 2, 2024 Posted March 2, 2024 (edited) According to the all knowing (cough ---- cough) wiki, At lower altitudes the Gm1 and MW-50 could both be engaged. But given that there is not a lot if information about this, What have the devs found in their research? 22 hours ago, ScotsmanFlyingscotsman said: I remember building the 1/72 scale FROG kit of this, about the last one they made. Just how manouverable was it though, I could see it being turned like a glider at high altitude, but probably struggling lower down. Are there any reports of what it was like to fly? Wallet ready....man my wallet is struggling these days ? There is recorded combat against the "Tempest" 14 hours ago, Razorback said: Do you recall the accounts given by the two P51 pilots? They saw this plane on the runway taking off, tried to bounce it, and could not catch it. I have that correct? I can not remember the book. The only story that I have read (though take that with a rather large pinch of salt) is one where Kurt tank himself was flying one, And on being "bounced" opened the throttle and pulled away from the enemy aircraft. There is no known allied confirmation of this story, but given that there was no engagement / aircraft shot down, there wouldn't likely be any Allied reports on this "incident" if it did in fact happen. Edited March 2, 2024 by LukeFF Language
JG7_RudeRaptor Posted March 2, 2024 Posted March 2, 2024 5 hours ago, Razorback said: Do you recall the accounts given by the two P51 pilots? They saw this plane on the runway taking off, tried to bounce it, and could not catch it. I have that correct? I can not remember the book. Not sure about the 51s but I know the Ta's had some run-in's with some Tempests, Spits and Yak 9s very late in the war.
CountZero Posted March 2, 2024 Posted March 2, 2024 (edited) 13 hours ago, ITAF_Rani said: At this point Devs have to consider to develop as AI B 17 or 24. In this way the Ta has reason to exist... AI B-25 can pretend its B-17, youll also have to pretend your taking of from bases not on maps in game, so why not pretend your shooting down B-17... in MP it will be limited to few 2-4 at best, in SP you wont have any historicaly posibilitys, so its airplane for quick missions and what if scenarious, and it will probably sell better then most collector airplanes in game collectable g.55 is closer to reality, its basicly same , no reason not to add it, they already anounced yak-3 and la-7 for whome also there is no maps in game for historical missions Edited March 2, 2024 by CountZero 1 2
AEthelraedUnraed Posted March 2, 2024 Posted March 2, 2024 1 hour ago, novicebutdeadly said: There is no known allied confirmation of this story, but given that there was no engagement / aircraft shot down, there wouldn't likely be any Allied reports on this "incident" if it did in fact happen. Not so sure about that. I haven't been able to ever find any of their US counterparts online, but the British ORBs (Operational Record Books, of which the vast majority is freely available online) are usually remarkably complete. Especially Form 541 (Record of Events); if they were to spot an aircraft but not engage it, chances are good it'd still be written down. I've seen records of things like "a single trail high in the sky".
LuftManu Posted March 2, 2024 Posted March 2, 2024 GM1 and other special abilites of this aircraft make it really interesting! also now that the P-47 has again their muscle at altitudes, it's going to be fun to use it too up there. (I know real ops were low altitude, but still) Thanks team!
EAF19_Marsh Posted March 2, 2024 Posted March 2, 2024 It’s a nice looking thing, though personally I prefer the ‘C’ model. Did any of them get the DB603?
Luftschiff Posted March 2, 2024 Posted March 2, 2024 Beautiful wunderwaffle, yes yes, but what about the I-153, the Brewster Buffalo, the G.50 and FW189... ? I guess I've just always preferred the early war and the uncelebrated workhorses to these super-late megaplanes. Get me some weird Winter war or BoF aircraft and we can talk shop! 4 6
ShamrockOneFive Posted March 2, 2024 Posted March 2, 2024 43 minutes ago, Luftschiff said: Beautiful wunderwaffle, yes yes, but what about the I-153, the Brewster Buffalo, the G.50 and FW189... ? I guess I've just always preferred the early war and the uncelebrated workhorses to these super-late megaplanes. Get me some weird Winter war or BoF aircraft and we can talk shop! That's why I think it is good that they next Collector Plane after the Ta152 is the I-153. 4
Lusekofte Posted March 2, 2024 Posted March 2, 2024 (edited) 28 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said: That's why I think it is good that they next Collector Plane after the Ta152 is the I-153. I could not care less for the TA. It played no part worth noticing in any arena. But the I-153 did. Sadly not too much on our current maps. After that a Arado 123 should be priority Edited March 2, 2024 by Lusekofte
sevenless Posted March 2, 2024 Posted March 2, 2024 10 minutes ago, Lusekofte said: After that a Arado 123 should be priority I guess that should read Henschel Hs 123 ? 2 1
Lusekofte Posted March 2, 2024 Posted March 2, 2024 47 minutes ago, sevenless said: I guess that should read Henschel Hs 123 ? Yes I was thinking of that one. Coolest ever plane built 2 1
LF_Zaffy Posted March 2, 2024 Posted March 2, 2024 (edited) 2 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said: It’s a nice looking thing, though personally I prefer the ‘C’ model. Did any of them get the DB603? I'm surprised to see only one person commenting on this. The german fleet keeps getting more and more high altitude planes, with the game having basically no tasks at this high altitudes. Battles simply don't happen this high, its a reality. Cool for some operations, but not for multiplayer. The TA152-C3 would "solve" this issue, giving us the shorter wing that would benefit more this plane for the reality we live day to day in this game. I don't wanna talk to early, as we don't know the options this plane will have, but I really hope we can modify the H-1 to equip the C3 wing (for, as far as I know, thats the only real difference between this two planes.) PD: And don't get me wrong, I would probably prefer flying the H-1 in most cases, but alas, options are good. Specially for those that will want to stay low. Edited March 2, 2024 by LF_Zaffy 3
Rjel Posted March 2, 2024 Posted March 2, 2024 17 hours ago, Gambit21 said: Don Bryan in the 352nd said he never saw a 262 go through a B-17 formation without taking out at least 2 bombers. As I recall, after the war the USAAF did some testing with captured Me-262s and B-17s. They found the turrets on the bombers couldn't transit quickly enough to track the jets. I'd have hated sitting there knowing there was little I could do to defend myself.
ShamrockOneFive Posted March 2, 2024 Posted March 2, 2024 1 hour ago, LF_Zaffy said: I'm surprised to see only one person commenting on this. The german fleet keeps getting more and more high altitude planes, with the game having basically no tasks at this high altitudes. Battles simply don't happen this high, its a reality. Cool for some operations, but not for multiplayer. The TA152-C3 would "solve" this issue, giving us the shorter wing that would benefit more this plane for the reality we live day to day in this game. I don't wanna talk to early, as we don't know the options this plane will have, but I really hope we can modify the H-1 to equip the C3 wing (for, as far as I know, thats the only real difference between this two planes.) PD: And don't get me wrong, I would probably prefer flying the H-1 in most cases, but alas, options are good. Specially for those that will want to stay low. It roughly matches what happened to the Ta152H. Instead of high altitude intercepts it was mostly caught doing low altitude defense and one of the few battles that it was documented in was a tree top fight with a bunch of Tempests. The C model is an even rarer bird than the H so I can see why they went this direction. 2
Mtnbiker1998 Posted March 2, 2024 Posted March 2, 2024 a whopping 25 produced, in the last few months of the war, flying out of airbases that aren't on any of our maps, designed to shoot down bombers that aren't even in the game... Who cleared this for development? Honestly, what a joke. 1 1 7
BlitzPig_EL Posted March 2, 2024 Posted March 2, 2024 Meteor please, as long as we are adding aircraft that barely did anything during the time of the conflict. 2 10
LF_Zaffy Posted March 2, 2024 Posted March 2, 2024 (edited) 1 hour ago, ShamrockOneFive said: It roughly matches what happened to the Ta152H. Instead of high altitude intercepts it was mostly caught doing low altitude defense and one of the few battles that it was documented in was a tree top fight with a bunch of Tempests. The C model is an even rarer bird than the H so I can see why they went this direction. You are right. And again, don't get me wrong, I am a massive TA-152H enjoyer (I have been talking about wanting it on the game since 2022), just surprised about there being no mention of the C-3 model and ranting a bit in regards to the clear lack of objective for this high altitude beast. Next on my wishlist - DO335 and HE162 . One can always dream haha. Edited March 2, 2024 by LF_Zaffy 1 3
EAF19_Marsh Posted March 2, 2024 Posted March 2, 2024 1 hour ago, ShamrockOneFive said: The C model is an even rarer bird than the H so I can see why they went this direction. Sure, not suggesting it would be better, just aesthetically I like it. Though the H’s long span wings are quite unique and the lack of cowl guns I prefer. Not sure there is much material on the C that would have allowed it to be modelled. 1
354thFG_Leifr Posted March 2, 2024 Posted March 2, 2024 TA152 is cool, but man, it seems a complete waste of effort for BoX. A literal unicorn; not present in the Bodenplatte map, used (supposedly) against aircraft that aren't available in game, at altitudes rarely ventured to in-game. Easy pass all day long on this, and would rather see some early-mid war aircraft made available instead. 2 1 7
FliegerAD Posted March 2, 2024 Posted March 2, 2024 5 hours ago, Luftschiff said: Beautiful wunderwaffle, yes yes, but what about the I-153, the Brewster Buffalo, the G.50 and FW189... ? I guess I've just always preferred the early war and the uncelebrated workhorses to these super-late megaplanes. Get me some weird Winter war or BoF aircraft and we can talk shop! You are not alone. Those late war super planes are fun, of course, but there are so many aircraft with more significant service records. More P-40s or -39s or -38s, Beaufighter, Ju 88 R-2, Ju 87 D-5... What's worse, people will ask for more super-late stuff like jets, and who could blame them? That is the slippery slope. The beauty, and imo one selling point of Il-2 is the immersion with proper maps, proper airfields, proper targets and opposition rather than a DCS-style sandbox in which the He 162 circles the YP-80, and the rest be damned. Unfortunately cold economic logic might dictate that Il-2 GB ends up with such scenarios. 21 hours ago, sevenless said: Oh, and dont miss the Meteor I and III, which actually saw service not only hunting down doodle-bugs (V1s) in 1944 but also on the continent in 1945 both near Brussels and in Northern Germany. It also has the distinction of participating in the first jet-on-jet combat ever when it was bombed by an Ar 234. ? 2
1CGS LukeFF Posted March 2, 2024 Author 1CGS Posted March 2, 2024 2 hours ago, Mtnbiker1998 said: designed to shoot down bombers that aren't even in the game... ...and never engaged a single bomber formation that we know of. So relax. ? The team has wanted to model the 152 for a long time now. It was originally planned for Bodenplatte but other planes had priority. 2
Avimimus Posted March 2, 2024 Posted March 2, 2024 1 hour ago, 86th_Leifr said: TA152 is cool, but man, it seems a complete waste of effort for BoX. A literal unicorn; not present in the Bodenplatte map, used (supposedly) against aircraft that aren't available in game, at altitudes rarely ventured to in-game. Easy pass all day long on this, and would rather see some early-mid war aircraft made available instead. It's actual combat use was against aircraft we'll have in game. Look up the actual combat histories! 3
RoteDreizehn Posted March 2, 2024 Posted March 2, 2024 (edited) On 3/1/2024 at 6:10 PM, 357th_KW said: An interesting note regarding the pressurization system from Willi Reschke's book Jagdgeschwader 301/302 "Wilde Sau": III./JG301 was equipped with Ta 152 H-0 and H-1 series aircraft. While the H-0 lacked cockpit pressurization, the H-1 was equipped with a functioning pressurization system. The cockpit was sealed with a tubular bladder partly filled with foam rubber, which was inflated by a compressed air bottle to 2.5 atmospheres. The bladder had to be deflated and the canopy lock released before the canopy could be jettisoned. The canopy consisted of two layers of plexiglass to prevent fogging. Silica-gel capsules kept the air between the two layers dry. Today there is uncertainty as to whether the pilots were ever briefed on the canopy jettisoning procedure. Based on the memories of surviving Ta 152 pilots it probably never happened. It is therefore doubtful that an attempted bail-out would have succeeded. >>Today there is uncertainty as to whether the pilots were ever briefed on the canopy jettisoning procedure. Based on the memories of surviving Ta 152 pilots it >>probably never happened. It is therefore doubtful that an attempted bail-out would have succeeded. really? this is first one what you asking for before you flying such planes.... the pilots were hanging on their lives... They hadnt so much pilots at the end of war... Why did they interrupt Sonderkommando Elbe in example? Edited March 3, 2024 by RoteDreizehn 1 1
357th_KW Posted March 2, 2024 Posted March 2, 2024 It’s an interesting historical anecdote related to the pressurization system people were talking about. If it bothers you, I guess you could complain to Willi Reschke, though I doubt you’d get much response.
RoteDreizehn Posted March 2, 2024 Posted March 2, 2024 (edited) 1 hour ago, 357th_KW said: It’s an interesting historical anecdote related to the pressurization system people were talking about. If it bothers you, I guess you could complain to Willi Reschke, though I doubt you’d get much response. Sadly he died. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvvN5Te6v7E (english subtitles)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74nsR6zjXPY (english subtitles)Focke-Wulf Ta 152 H-1 Extreme Speed At High Altitudes. Edited March 2, 2024 by RoteDreizehn Personal Opinions of the TA 152 from himself (hopefully devs will listen to this) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvvN5Te6v7E 1
[CPT]Crunch Posted March 2, 2024 Posted March 2, 2024 I'd jump all over it if I knew it could be ported into the up and coming future version of the game, otherwise not so much. Will it turn into a super Dora if one gets half of each wing blown off?
Gambit21 Posted March 2, 2024 Posted March 2, 2024 35 minutes ago, [CPT]Crunch said: I'd jump all over it if I knew it could be ported into the up and coming future version of the game, otherwise not so much. Will it turn into a super Dora if one gets half of each wing blown off? Single 4K map and no PBR textures, it won’t hold much attraction even if it was. DCS is up to 7 x 4K maps just for the external, and upcoming modules will be at 9. All PBR of course. So continuing to develop aircraft at essentially bygone standards for an old engine seems a tad iffy from where I sit. I guess they’ll milk what they can for now, but my wallet is clamped until I see the new tech. 1 3
Eisenfaustus Posted March 2, 2024 Posted March 2, 2024 (edited) On 3/1/2024 at 6:14 PM, LukeFF said: Most likely, but the details of that are up to @BlackSix. That sounds great - maybe @BlackSix could elaborate about it's planned implementation in career mode? While historical accuracy is important for me it'd be a shame if it was only available the last weeks of the Rhineland career. I'd personally be quite fine with it being available from the earliest starting point in 1945 as it's potential adversaries don't change from that point onwards. To preserve some accuracy though the chances to encounter AI flights of Ta-152s should propably be 0. That said I'm pretty sure @PatrickAWlson will create some interesting gameplay opportunities for it in his awesome campaign generator! I'm actually really looking forward to this bird. Edited March 2, 2024 by Eisenfaustus
Razorback Posted March 2, 2024 Posted March 2, 2024 (edited) As for the P51 account, It is plausible it was the pilot (s) who bounced tank, but I am certain it was P51 (s) I may be mistaken on the number of p51s I thought it was 2, and it was one of our first encounters of the Ta152. Damned if I can recall the title of the book, but I WILL find it. Im thinking perhaps it is in Mr Browns book. I will have to find the book, and re read it. Lol not a bad lil task to have on a cold Saturday really . I havent read it in probably 3o years maybe. So give me a lil latitude with the finer details Id like to think my Clutch aint slippin LOL ! YET I remember thinking it sounded crazy, Mustang in a shallow dive, getting ready to nail an airfield, see a Ta152 taking off, and CANT catch it, when I read it I honestly thought thats BS, noway in hell, but why would they lie about being outrun by a new German fighter, The mustangs were not right on top of the field, but they were close enough to see a Ta152 taking off. Being that they were already low, and preparing to strafe a field. I could actually believe it. They simply did not have alt for a good enough dive angle to get the closure they needed. IF True that is still beyond impressive for the Ta152. Edited March 2, 2024 by Razorback 1
AEthelraedUnraed Posted March 3, 2024 Posted March 3, 2024 3 hours ago, Gambit21 said: Single 4K map and no PBR textures, it won’t hold much attraction even if it was. DCS is up to 7 x 4K maps just for the external, and upcoming modules will be at 9. All PBR of course. So continuing to develop aircraft at essentially bygone standards for an old engine seems a tad iffy from where I sit. I guess they’ll milk what they can for now, but my wallet is clamped until I see the new tech. You know as well as I do that PBR isn't any strict rendering technique but just a "design philosophy" for shaders. Depending on how the "PBR" shaders are programmed, you can do with just a couple of maps without too much quality loss (ideally Albedo, Normal, Metallic/Specular, Roughness and AO). Anything beyond that can either be done through separate shaders (e.g. Opacity for glass etc., Emission for lights) or brings little to no gain for a huge cost (Normal is just the derivative of Height; having a separate heightmap for e.g. parallax mapping will give a large performance impact for little visual gain. Refraction and SSS are much too costly.) They already have Albedo, Specular (stored in the Albedo alpha channel), AO (baked into Albedo but they have the separate source files) and Normal maps. Meaning they'd just need to create the Roughness map and they have enough for a so-called "PBR" shader. If they create their textures in 8k (for example) and then downscale them to 4k for the current IL2, they wouldn't even need to re-create higher-res textures for the new game.* Sounds hardly like an investment they wouldn't make if they wanted to port the Ta-152 to the new engine. I don't think it's likely we'll see the Ta-152 in the new game, but the switch to "PBR" has little to do with it. * With some smart re-ordering of channels they could even do it with just 2 texture files, the same amount as the current engine uses. Albedo is 3 channels, Normals 2 (blue can be reconstructed from red and green), Metallic, Roughness and AO each 1. That's 8 channels in total, or 2 RGBA textures.
Recommended Posts