Author Topic: Nevermind  (Read 4897 times)

Offline Pyro

  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4020
      • http://www.hitechcreations.com
Nevermind
« on: October 13, 2005, 11:06:43 AM »
Nevermind.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2005, 11:31:59 AM by Pyro »

Offline Bruno

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1252
      • http://4jg53.org
109 armament options
« Reply #1 on: October 13, 2005, 11:13:54 AM »
Franz? who's that...:p

F = Fritz i.e. Freidrich

The 109F-4 shouldn't have gondolas...

Another thing to consider is eliminating the 3cm option from the the G-6.

see this post:

G-6 MK 108 production numbers

F-4s and E-4s (suffix b on these) used the ETC 50 to carry 4 x 50 kg on the center line. I am not sure how useful these would be in ToD. I haven't seen any real life pictures of Gustavs with the ETC 50 but I will let the other experts answer that.

Gondola options for the G-2 / G-6 and K-4 should be good. I haven't seen any pictures of G-14s with gondolas, again I defer to the experts.

Offline wastel1

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 26
109 armament options
« Reply #2 on: October 13, 2005, 01:20:23 PM »
..and all 109Gs should have 200 rounds of Mg151/20 ammo..not 150.

wastel

Offline Bruno

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1252
      • http://4jg53.org
109 armament options
« Reply #3 on: October 13, 2005, 01:46:42 PM »
150 and 200 rounds are both correct.

200 was maximum capacity. However, to reduce problems with jamming it wasn't unusual to load less then the maximum i.e. 150. Since AH doesn't model gun jams and since other aircraft get over loaded I agree 200 should be an option at the very least.

Offline Kurfürst

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 921
      • http://www.kurfurst.org
Re: 109 armament options
« Reply #4 on: October 13, 2005, 02:34:08 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Pyro
I need to decide what armament options are to be included on the various 109s.  What ordnance should be available for the different variants?  Did the ETC 50 see much use?  Remove gondolas from the Franz?


If I can be of any help....

- Gondolas were option on Bf 109s, F*, G or K. Ie., there was no different versions like '109 w. gondolas' or '109 w/o gondolas'.

They were factory prepeared to carry it (from the Gustav onwards). ALL subtypes. Pretty much like droptanks, or bombs, wiring etc. was there in the wings, if they were felt to be needed, the groundcrew would remove the lower wing panels, and could install the the whole gondola rather quickly, or remove them if they were unneccesary for the mission.
Briefly, it should be an option for all Bf 109 F*, G K subtype.

- The MK 108 was not really an option, but you can handle it as such. On the G-series, it was a different subtype, produced with this weapon in the factory, and the aircraft stayed with this gun after that.
It designated with /U4. Ie. G-6/U4, G-14/U4, G-10/U4. It would be fair to say that about 1/3 of these planes were produced as /U4.
'Normal ones', designated G-6, G-14, G-10 would carry the MG 151/20. It couldn't be changed in the field.

On the 109K, the gun mounted was always the MK 108, so not an option but a rule.

- ETC 50 was used on Bf 109E, F and G series. ALL subtypes. The 109K did not have this listed, though I am rather certain it was merely a choice, there were better weapons, ie. cluster bombs.

Instead of dropping 4x50kg bombs, bomblet dispensers were  introduced, first used in June 1941. Initially they were fixed bomb bay-like stuff attached to the aircraft's belly, that would drop the bomblets, later bomb-like containers were introduced, these being 250kg (or 500kg) 'mother bombs', that carried many smaller bomblets of 2kg, 10 kg, etc. size, which opened after dropped and ejected the smaller ones, a bit like modern cluster bombs.
There were quite a few variations, most being different sized and quantity fragmantation bomblets, which were great against soft targets, but there were one with cumulative (HEAT) bomblets for anti-armor work. Imho at least the AB 250-I with 96x2kg SD2 bombs should be added. It was carried on the usual ETC 500 bombrack.

AB 250 :



And it's contents.... 96 pieces of SD 2 'butterfly' frag bomblets :




- Ordonance : Bf 109E, F, G were limited to 250 kg bombs, because of ground clearance issues with larger bombs (the bombrack could handle a 500kger though).

The 109K had the long tail unit as standard fitting, giving the needed clearance, and according to the datasheet and manual, it was cleared for up to 500kg (or 250kg, of course) bomb. I suppose the late 109G-10 or G-14 could also carry such, if they had the long tailwheel as well, but that varied from plane to plane, ie not standard for all planes.


* of the 109F series, the later production Bf 109F-4/R1 had the neccesary factory prepeations to carry gondolas, ie. not all 109Fs could mount it. So imho do not remove it as an option.


If you have any questions, I'd be glad to help, contact me at kurfurst@atw.hu !
The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site
http://www.kurfurst.org

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Re: 109 armament options
« Reply #5 on: October 13, 2005, 02:42:16 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kurfürst


- Gondolas were option on Bf 109s, F*, G or K. Ie., there was no different versions like '109 w. gondolas' or '109 w/o gondolas'.


It was possible to put gondies on the F-4. Later models, sure, but it WAS possible. Some did have them. Because of that I say include them. Only half the people in AH use 'em anyways.


Quote
- The MK 108 was not really an option, but you can handle it as such. On the G-series, it was a different subtype, produced with this weapon in the factory, and the aircraft stayed with this gun after that.
It designated with /U4. Ie. G-6/U4, G-14/U4, G-10/U4. It would be fair to say that about 1/3 of these planes were produced as /U4.
'Normal ones', designated G-6, G-14, G-10 would carry the MG 151/20. It couldn't be changed in the field.


The only difference between these planes is the hub cannon. Literally no other changes were made. While there was no simple way to change it (like taking gondolas off) whenever they changed the engine they could have.

Given the fact that 1/3 of all G6s had 30mm and there are NO other changes to the flight model (other than internal weight) I see no reason to remove this gun option. In fact, the G6 actually needs 30mm a lot of times in order to get kills, as there are times when a single 20mm just doesn't cut it.

I say leave both on.


Pyro, question: Are you open to semi-outlandish suggestions? E-1 armament option on the E4? E1s were still serving with E3/4s and many were upgraded to E3/4 standards in the field. The main difference is that the wing guns were 2x7mm's instead of MG/FF. :P Any chance this might be a second guns option on the E4? :P

Offline butch2k

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 238
      • http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/forums
109 armament options
« Reply #6 on: October 13, 2005, 02:53:48 PM »
On the Friedrich Gondolas were only available on the F-4/R1 which featured different wings from previous versions, a Rüstsatz (R VII ; MG151/20 Gondolas) was made available for that variant only.

E-4 were E-3 with MG-FFM replacing MG-FF, that's the only textbook change made to the design. At the same time armor and cockpit changes were introduced but could be found on both E-3 and E-4.
E-1 and E-3 were upgraded to E-4 standard (MG-FFM) and alter to E-7 standard (Belly Tank)
« Last Edit: October 13, 2005, 02:55:53 PM by butch2k »

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
109 armament options
« Reply #7 on: October 13, 2005, 03:05:53 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by butch2k
E-4 were E-3 with MG-FFM replacing MG-FF, that's the only textbook change made to the design. At the same time armor and cockpit changes were introduced but could be found on both E-3 and E-4.
E-1 and E-3 were upgraded to E-4 standard (MG-FFM) and alter to E-7 standard (Belly Tank)


[EDIT: I misread-you on that, I thought you meant the MG/FF were added only on the E4, and the E3 had 7mms, sorry about that, I'll leave the rest up for the sake of whole-ness]

Not so. The E3 is the model that introduced the wing mounted MG/FF. The E3 and E4 differed only in the canopy and head armor. It was a very minor change, and it is why everybody usually counts the E-3/E-4 as identical.

The E1 is the last major version (heck if I know what happened to E-2!) that had 7mms in the wings, but it did serve with 7mms in the wings through the BOB. The canopy and pilot armor was upgradable in the field, but the wing guns must have been harder, because I know there were many 4x7mm armed 109Es fighting over the channel in 1940.

[EDIT 2: I'm not totally obsessed with 4x7mms. Just wanted to ask. If it's a no-go that's fine (as we don't have an E1, we have an E4, there's reason NOT to add it). ]
« Last Edit: October 13, 2005, 03:12:51 PM by Krusty »

Offline Bruno

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1252
      • http://4jg53.org
109 armament options
« Reply #8 on: October 13, 2005, 03:48:53 PM »
Quote
* of the 109F series, the later production Bf 109F-4/R1 had the neccesary factory prepeations to carry gondolas, ie. not all 109Fs could mount it. So imho do not remove it as an option.


In AH I don't think you can currently regulate 'load out' options.  Armament options are basically just that, 'load out options' and selectable as you spawn. There's no separate selection for F-4/R1, G-6/U4 etc.. Anyone spawning an F-4 or G-6 will be able to take an F-4/R1 or G-6/U4 and they are available in unlimited numbers (or at least only limited by the total number of F-4s in use, if there were 16 F-4s in the write-up then all 16 in the event could be F-4/R1s).

There's no reason for the F-4 to have the option for gondolas (how many F-4/R1s saw service?) as it will be an option that gets 'abused'. Meaning that gondolas will be selected more often and thus you end up with more F-4/R1s in game then ever saw service.

Quote
Given the fact that 1/3 of all G6s had 30mm and there are NO other changes to the flight model (other than internal weight) I see no reason to remove this gun option.


1/3 of all G-6s didn't have 3cm, you were shown this in the other thread. Since the G-6 has been re-done to reflect an earlier G-6 (framed canopy, regular tail) its a G-6 that would rarely have 3cm, especially in '43. As I said to Kurfurst about the F-4 gondolas a G-6 with 3cm as an option will get 'abused' and you end up seeing far more G-6/U4s then ever saw service. See Butch's post in the linked thread. In '43 there were only 181 G-6/U4 produced. Less then 15% of the total number of G-6s (12k) produced overall were G-6/U4s.

Even the G-14/U4 was rare. Again see Butch's post in the thread I linked:

Quote
G-14/U4
08/1944 : 59
09/1944 : 32
10/1944 : 228
11/1944 : 118
12/1944 : 56
01/1945 : 47
02/1945 : 2


Out of a total of 5500 G-14s produced (about 1000 of were G-14/AS).

Quote
Not so. The E3 is the model that introduced the wing mounted MG/FF. The E3 and E4 differed only in the canopy and head armor. It was a very minor change, and it is why everybody usually counts the E-3/E-4 as identical.


That's not what Butch said. He said E-1s and E-3s were 'upgraded' (correct word?) to E-4s. That means same armament...

If there's a way for CMs to control what load out options are available, or regulate the total number of a particular load out then these things can be regulated and not over 'abused' (provided the CM goes along with 'history rather then his own opinions). If they can not, then just get rid of them all together.

Offline Pyro

  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4020
      • http://www.hitechcreations.com
109 armament options
« Reply #9 on: October 13, 2005, 04:04:45 PM »
« Last Edit: October 14, 2005, 11:32:54 AM by Pyro »

Offline MrSpanky

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 97
109 armament options
« Reply #10 on: October 13, 2005, 04:25:22 PM »
I'm not sure if this helps, but here's what I've seen

Bf 109G-1 through Bf 109G-5:
Addition of ETC 50/VIIId ventral rack for 1 SC 250 bomb or 4 SC 50 bombs

Offline 1K3

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3449
109 armament options
« Reply #11 on: October 13, 2005, 04:32:37 PM »
from http://www.bf109.com/armament.html

Bf 109F-4   

Increased caliber of the MG 151 from 15mm to 20mm. Also utilized the Revi C/12D reflector gunsight that were standard on the earlier F-series. In addition, two further sub-type conversions were produced under the Bf 109F-4 designation. The first of these was the Bf 109F-4/R6 which was fitted with an extra pair of 20mm MG 151 cannon in underwing gondolas. The increase in firepower was made at the request of General Adolf Galland and other top Luftwaffe fighter aces. The additional armament of the F-4/R6 was well recieved. The increased weight and added drag had a detrimental effect on the aircraft's handling qualities, however, reducing its capability as a "dogfighter", and the aircraft were used strictly as bomber-interceptors. The second conversion was similar to that of the earlier fighter-bomber modifications to the Bf 109E-4/B and included the attachment of the ventrally-mounted ETC 250 bomb rack capable of carrying a 250 kg (550-lb.) bomb, a 300 Litre (66 Imp gal.) jettisonable fuel tank, or with an ER 4 adapter, four 50 kg (110-lb.) SC 50 bombs.

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
109 armament options
« Reply #12 on: October 13, 2005, 04:59:27 PM »
The 4-bomb adapter may not have been too common, but from my understanding the ETC 50 belly rack was standard for all belly mountings, be they DTs or bombs. (That's what I understood, at any rate).

Offline Charge

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
109 armament options
« Reply #13 on: October 13, 2005, 06:17:26 PM »
"and you end up seeing far more G-6/U4s then ever saw service."

Im not at all sure about that. The 30mm is a rather hard gun to master and I usually prefer 1 or 3 20mms over it.

-C+
"When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a giant meteor hurtling to the earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much screwed no matter what you wish for. Unless of course, it's death by meteorite."

Offline Squire

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7683
109 armament options
« Reply #14 on: October 13, 2005, 08:01:54 PM »
Well, if your going by common wartime service I would go with something like this:

Gondolas for 109G-2, 109G-6 and 109G-14. Common service.

Air to air Mortars for 109G-6 and 109G-14 as well. Common service.

No gondos for the 109F-4 as its in the same category as the Spitfire Vs 4 x 20mm. Room for lots of abuse where few saw service, for both types.

No gondos for the 109K-4 as it didnt carry them.

Although the 109E-4/b was not a common BoB varient, it may be a usefull option to have the ETC 50 rack, for setups where you want a 109E fighter-bomber (say N. Africa)...

All the 109s after the E-4 should have a Drop Tank option of course, and a wide range of LW bombs should be given for the types that could carry them in centerline racks (109F-109K inclusive).

***************************

If your going by "here is my extensive list of every available option" I will leave that to the others.
Warloc
Friday Squad Ops CM Team
1841 Squadron Fleet Air Arm
Aces High since Tour 24