Originally posted by Crumpp
So the ETC 500 was rare, what about the ETC 50/VIId?
All the best,
Crumpp
I think you mixed up the designations (I was too until recently!).
So here's the story... field kits - like bombs, droptanks were called 'Ruestsaetze' in the LW, and were not noted in the plane's designation! Ie. a 109G-6 carrying Ruestsatz VI (gondolas) was NOT a G-6/R6!!
The /Rx suffix always designates some factory installed kit (Ruestzustand)
All in all, the 109F-4/R1 designates F-4 factory conversion that was prepeared to carry gondola weapons, not the basic 109F-4 with the Rustsatz I field kit (the ETC 500 bombrack). The ETC 500 was definitely not rare anyway.
As for the 109F with gondolas. Let's see just the facts. The F-4/R1 was able to mount gondolas, it was produced in some numbers, and in fact there are pictures of 109Fs with gondolas, so it was there, and was used. It certainly wasn't around in big numbers (240 out of 1841 F-4s produced had this option). I think Pyro should decide.
109F-4 production :
From Prien/Rodeike. F-4/Z is the one with GM-1 boost btw.
Gondola weight and speed loss at SL (Bf 109G) :
If Pyro needs it, I have the whole document, it lists the speed loss for every item (bombs, droptanks, cowlings, tailwheels etc).
The Bf 109K definietely HAD gondola option. The 109K-4 Handbuch, Teil0, page 34 lists the available
field kits (note though that another doc, GLC/E datasheet listing fighter variants also lists the 21cm rocket launchers for the 109K-4. OTOH, it was probably never used.) :
So it should be debated wheter it was an option or not. It was. The 109K definietely needs it. And as the JG 26 war diary mentions, it was also used sometime. This has imho rather more to do with the war situation (overwhelming number of escorts didn't allow for ANY performance loss), but not modelling it based on this is silly imho, as AH2's arena doesn't recreate historical but hypothetical scenerios. In real life pilots choose not to use it in 44/45 because the numbers of the enemy - you can rarely see any 109G mounting gondolos in late 1944 either. But in the sim, it could be a reversed situation which would make gondolas a very viable choice.
Now as for the K-6, it didn't carried gondolas but MK 108s (MG 151 was also considered) inside the wings, bulging out of the surface ! Plus it carried a lot of armor, basically it was the 109 equivalant of the FW190 'sturmbocks'.
What I think would be definietely needed is the AB 250 (for 109F/G) and AB 500 (for 190s and 109K) bomb dispenser containers, in two forms :
- one loaded with lots of SD 2 'butterfly' bomblets for soft targets
- and one with SD 4HL (HEAT) cumulative bomblets for anti-armor work.
These two imho are absultely neccesary. The reasons you can't find rockets on German fighters is that they had these equivalent weapons systems for ground work, and they were used very widespreadly, they covered a good area with those many little bombs.
Now as for the G-6/U4, I see validity in the concerns that it would lead to abuse if say in an 1943 scenario everyone would suddenly fly with 109G-6s with the MK 108, even though they were produced in considerable numbers in that year (180-odd).No, sorry Bruno, not all 12 000ish G-6 was produced alone in 1943... far from it. But it should definietely and option for the G-14 (which can be seen as a late G-6 of 1944) and G-10, and of course it's the only weapon for K-4.
BTW the U4 kit was certainly not convertible in the field, it was factory mod. The MK 108 required compressed air for operation, which was provided from comp. air bootles, and some piping, ie. it was quite clearly an afterthought installation in the factory.
The 109K relied on another (neater) system, compressed air was gained from the supercharger itself.
