Author Topic: 190F8 vs GVs  (Read 2069 times)

Offline Urchin

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5517
190F8 vs GVs
« on: June 18, 2004, 05:50:25 PM »
A couple things I would put forward for consideration.  

1.  The 190F-8 really really needs a larger selection of weapons.  I believe it could carry both rockets (which would be nice against tanks and Osties) and clusterbombs (which would be nice against Osties and the M-series).

2.  As far as strafing goes, the 190F8 is next to useless against the Panzer IV.  The way the MG-151 is modelled hurts the strafing capability of the 190F-8 a lot.  I would suggest that perhaps instead of a hybrid loadout of HE, Mine, and AP rounds, the 190F-8 has its ammo load changed to all or mostly AP.  That way it would be able to disable the Panzer IVs turret and engine at least, if not kill it outright.

I feel this would go a long way towards making the 190F-8 a competitive anti-GV airplane.  Thanks in advance for any input, or your opinion of this idea.

Offline Replicant

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3567
190F8 vs GVs
« Reply #1 on: June 18, 2004, 05:52:22 PM »
Sounds fair, the F8 is a really nice plane.

How about Fighter option selects HE rounds and Attack option selects AP rounds?  (if this could be modelled of course!)
NEXX

Offline thrila

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3190
      • The Few Squadron
190F8 vs GVs
« Reply #2 on: June 18, 2004, 06:06:15 PM »
I have to agree....  the F8 is pretty poor in it's intended role for AH.
"Willy's gone and made another,
Something like it's elder brother-
Wing tips rounded, spinner's bigger.
Unbraced tailplane ends it's figure.
One-O-nine F is it's name-
F is for futile, not for fame."

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
190F8 vs GVs
« Reply #3 on: June 18, 2004, 06:26:08 PM »
just make the AP/HE choice a gunset option like every other weapon choice in the hangar.

I agree the F8 needs more loadouts as it had to be anything more than a '44-45 stuka.
Other planes like the Il2 need them too.
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline GODO

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 555
      • http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.htm
190F8 vs GVs
« Reply #4 on: June 18, 2004, 06:59:37 PM »
190F8s had the so called "wet wings", with pipes and fuel pumps so that one external 300l tank can be loaded in each wing. These planes replaced the 190G8s long range fighter-bombers.

Some 190F8s were also adapted to carry one torpedo (called "torpedobomb") and with a special sight so the torpedo can be "aimed" and lauched higher than normal ones and form higher angle. That may be an excelent adition to the AH2 arsenal.

Note that some of them were equipped with 801TS (2000 hp) instead of the 801D-2 engines.

Certainly, while other planes had a full variety of options (even for ammo loads) like P47s, P38s, P51s, etc, our 190F8 is still "naked".

Offline Rasker

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1265
190F8 vs GVs
« Reply #5 on: June 18, 2004, 07:48:52 PM »
As I stated in another thread, I vote for the F-8 to get the option to carry the historical German rockets with Panzerfaust/schreck type warheads, somewhat comparable  to the nice RS type rockets available to the IL-2.  That would also make a better and more interesting option to respond to combined GV/vulching fighter assault on your field than would the dowdy (and armor-undermodeled) IL-2.

Offline WHATTHEHELL

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 209
190F8 vs GVs
« Reply #6 on: June 21, 2004, 09:24:52 PM »
I asked pyro this a long time aog and showed all kinds of data.  He said it is still on his list of things to add the rockets and what not.  then again that was 2 years Ago ;)  All is forgotten if the 410 comes to Ah2 :aok

Offline Urchin

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5517
190F8 vs GVs
« Reply #7 on: June 21, 2004, 10:09:02 PM »
Yea, I know the rockets are on the "to do" list, but I don't know if anyone ever mentioned the cluster bombs.  Actually I think they are cluster bombs, I'm not real sure.  I usually see them as "50 2-kg bombs" in the books I've read.  I think the 190F8 could mount them on the wings in place of the 50-kg bombs we have now.  I'd assume you'd have to release all 50 of the little bombs at once, so they'd be like cluster-bombs and blanket an area.  

Plus I think the only way the Mg-151 would have any chance of penetrating the armor on any of the tanks we have (or will have in the future ) is if there is an option to load AP ammo in place of the current 2 HE, 2 AP, 1 mine loadout.

Offline Urchin

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5517
190F8 vs GVs
« Reply #8 on: June 21, 2004, 10:24:14 PM »
Went and dug up an old post by me with Tony Williams stats on armor penetration.  

Quote

[EDIT: added this]Realistically, an attack on the roof or decking of a tank is not going to be made at better than 60 degrees, with 30 degrees being more likely. Furthermore, it's not going to be at very short range. So let's take 300m range and strikes at 60-30 degrees as typical.[/edit]


As I posted before, the .50" M2 AP could penetrate between 13mm and 5mm in these circumstances (with the smaller figure being more likely).

The MG 131 AP could similarly manage between 7mm and 3mm

The MG 151 15mm AP (non-Hartkern) from 19mm to 12mm

The MG 151 15mm Hartkern 24mm to 12mm

The MG 151 20mm AP between 12mm and 8mm

The 20mm MG-FF AP between 9mm and 6mm


If anyone would like to analyze an AH2 film that I made of .50s and Hispanos strafing a Panzer IV and killing it, and has somewhere I can post it to or email it to, let me know.  

Specifically, I'd like to find out what kind of angle seems necesary to kill the panzer.  Coming in flat doesn't seem to work very well, but coming in at an angle shallow enough that the pintle gun can shoot back is a steep enough angle to kill a Panzer IV, at least with Hispanos and .50s.  MG151s seem ineffective no matter what strafing angle is used.  

Since the AP performance of the Mg151 is similar to the AP performance of the .50 and Hispano round, I would really like the option to just load AP ammo on the 190F-8 (because since I'm a Luftwhiner, I like to use it to kill GVs in instead of an easier plane).
« Last Edit: June 22, 2004, 12:44:47 AM by Urchin »

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
190F8 vs GVs
« Reply #9 on: June 22, 2004, 12:20:29 AM »
Problem is that cannon strafing had little effect on Armour in WWII.  Even a Panzer IV, which was a medium tank, had 10 mm of armour on the top of the deck and turret.

Since your MG151 is not going to be hitting this armour at a 90 degree angle then you will be attempting to penetrate alot more depending on the angle you attack.

LW lineup is weak for anti-armour ground attack.  My vote is for the Ju 87G with 37mm guns.  he he he  

The 190F8 does need the PB2 rockets and the AB-250 cluster bomb with SD-2 bomblets.  PB2 for the armour.  SD-2 for the softskin and troops.  Imagine the hurtin you could put on an Airfield or town dropping 108 SD-2's in one pass.  It would take 3-4 190F8's to deack a field in one run.  I bet folks would be planning missions in them just to watch the fireworks.

Crumpp

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
190F8 vs GVs
« Reply #10 on: June 22, 2004, 12:31:44 AM »
I had posted this a few times in the past:

Hauptman Erhard Jähnert Staffelkäpitan of 2./Schlachtgeschwader 3, recounts his 599th mission flying a FW 190F-8 over of the Kurland Bridgehead:

Quote
On 16 February 1945, I attacked enemy armor in my Focke Wolf 190. It had already gotten quite close to our main line of resistance in foggy weather about 10 kilometers southeast of Tukkum.

Three of my comrades closed up with me when I designated the target. We dove on the group of armor and fired our rockets. I was fortunate enough to knock out three enemy tanks in three passes. Three more were crippled by my comrades. Since I expended my rockets, I tried to destroy the remaining tanks, which had already turned back, with my on-board weapons. In the process my aircraft took one or two hits in the lubrication system and also in the compass connections.

Orientation was no longer possible. Vision forward was prevented by the oil film that built up on the front windshield. The cockpit canopy was also stuck, so I sat in my aircraft as if I were in a coffin.

When the engine oil ran out and the engine temperature rose, I had to make an emergency landing. I could only see to the rear, so, with a “look back” I landed on an open field near an abandoned artillery position about 30 meters from a farmstead and 80 meters from a high-tension electric line.

I am certain that my landing rates as a most extraordinary piece of good luck in aviation.

I had neither pistol nor identification with me. When I saw several soldiers in camouflage parkas draw near I grabbed the flare pistol from the cockpit and waited.

Again my luck held. They were Latvians from one of the two Latvian Waffen-SS divisions. They took me to their battalion command post.

I was well received in the grenadiers’ bunker and fed. Soon I was driven back to my airfield.


Incidentally, Erhard Jähnert received the knights cross on 18 May 1943 as a Leutnant flying stukas while attached to Stukageschwader 4.

Later as Staffelkäpitan of 9./Stukageschwader 2, he took part in that squadrons greatest success when it sank 3 soviet destroyers in the Black Sea south of the Crimea.

He was later removed from combat duty and assigned as an instructor. In the fall of 1944 at his own personal request he was transferred to the Kurland Bridgehead and made Staffelkäpitan of 2./Schlachtgeschwader 3.

He destroyed 25 Soviet tanks while flying the FW 190F-8 over Kurland.. On the day of surrender he took what passengers he could and flew out of Kurland and landed at Flensburg. He was put up for the oak leaves but in the hectic days just prior to German capitulation the award never went through.

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
190F8 vs GVs
« Reply #11 on: June 22, 2004, 12:37:27 AM »

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
190F8 vs GVs
« Reply #12 on: June 22, 2004, 12:40:20 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Rasker
That would also make a better and more interesting option to respond to combined GV/vulching fighter assault on your field than would the dowdy (and armor-undermodeled) IL-2.


Uhhhm.. The IL2 is by far the best plane to take while your field is getting vulched.. Its awesome as an emergency fighter and it is by far the best Panzer IV killer with its magnificent 23mm cannon which are the best guns in AH for both anti armor and air to air work.

Offline Urchin

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5517
190F8 vs GVs
« Reply #13 on: June 22, 2004, 12:45:35 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
Problem is that cannon strafing had little effect on Armour in WWII.  Even a Panzer IV, which was a medium tank, had 10 mm of armour on the top of the deck and turret.

Since your MG151 is not going to be hitting this armour at a 90 degree angle then you will be attempting to penetrate alot more depending on the angle you attack.

LW lineup is weak for anti-armour ground attack.  My vote is for the Ju 87G with 37mm guns.  he he he  

The 190F8 does need the PB2 rockets and the AB-250 cluster bomb with SD-2 bomblets.  PB2 for the armour.  SD-2 for the softskin and troops.  Imagine the hurtin you could put on an Airfield or town dropping 108 SD-2's in one pass.  It would take 3-4 190F8's to deack a field in one run.  I bet folks would be planning missions in them just to watch the fireworks.

Crumpp


Check out the beginning of the quote again, I had meant to include that line from the start but screwed up.

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
190F8 vs GVs
« Reply #14 on: June 22, 2004, 07:16:22 AM »
Strafing with 20mm or less can do alot of damage.  It cannot however take out a tank.

Their is no doubt the 190F8 was an effective Ground Attack plane.  Just look at the variety of ordinance it could deliver.

Crumpp