Author Topic: About 190A armament.. (Read 978 times)

Kweassa · « **on:** May 09, 2005, 06:48:59 PM »

Can the 190As really arm WGr.21 rockets and outboard cannons at the same time??

How about other planes? Anyone else see 'suspicious' armament options in our plane set?

MiloMorai · « **Reply #1 on:** May 09, 2005, 09:00:36 PM »

The 190A-8 handbook has both, in photos and diagrams. The B2 button on the KG 13B is used to fire the rockets. This is the same button used to drop bombs, if carried.

Pongo · « **Reply #2 on:** May 09, 2005, 09:03:11 PM »

Ive got pictures of them arming 210s under the outbored cannon.

I wonder about some of the full load outs on the P47 and P38 when combined with full fuel. But im no expert.

Kweassa · « **Reply #3 on:** May 09, 2005, 09:29:46 PM »

Quote

The 190A-8 handbook has both, in photos and diagrams. The B2 button on the KG 13B is used to fire the rockets. This is the same button used to drop bombs, if carried.

So WGr21s + outboard cannons would have no problems...

...but it's impossible to use WGr21 + center rack bombs?

bunch · « **Reply #4 on:** May 09, 2005, 09:59:45 PM »

what with the high wingloading of the 190; 4 cannon, 2 MG, 2 BIG rockets, full fuel & a few hundred kg of bombs would have required a very long takeoff roll if the landing gear would support all that weight...i've read by a 9th AF P-47 pilot that sometimes HVARs wouldn't fire if the 0.50s were fired before trying to use the rockets (ejected shell casings cuting the fusing wires) & wouldnt be too surprised if the same applied to FM-2s, F4Us, F6Fs & P-51s

Krusty · « **Reply #5 on:** May 10, 2005, 12:26:52 PM »

Don't forget that a FW190 (an -A, no less) carried one of THE largest bombs of the war. Can't remember the name of it (the cursed Germans and their szkg-whatchamacallits), but I think it was about 4,000 lbs. It was centerline.

Cannons don't weigh that much, compared to bombs. Those Wgr rockets don't weigh much either, compared to bombs. It's not as if the plane was bogged down. Heck an F-8 with centerline and 4 wing loaded bombs weighs more and it takes off just fine.

What I want to know is why can't we get some gunpods for our 190As? LOL

And how much drag did those huge 2x20mm pods create?

MiloMorai · « **Reply #6 on:** May 10, 2005, 03:06:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
Don't forget that a FW190 (an -A, no less) carried one of THE largest bombs of the war. Can't remember the name of it (the cursed Germans and their szkg-whatchamacallits), but I think it was about 4,000 lbs. It was centerline.

Cannons don't weigh that much, compared to bombs. Those Wgr rockets don't weigh much either, compared to bombs. It's not as if the plane was bogged down. Heck an F-8 with centerline and 4 wing loaded bombs weighs more and it takes off just fine.

What I want to know is why can't we get some gunpods for our 190As? LOL

And how much drag did those huge 2x20mm pods create?

It was not a 190 A but a 190G that could carry the 1800kg bomb. The u/c had to be beefed up as did tire pressures. It also required a long hard and smooth runway.

The dual 20mm pod caused a speed loss of 25mph while the WGr21 caused a 31mph speed loss.

frank3 · « **Reply #7 on:** May 10, 2005, 03:38:46 PM »

I also believe a modified F-8 could carry a torpedo (With cranked-up tailwheel)

bunch · « **Reply #8 on:** May 10, 2005, 05:52:19 PM »

Iirc, that was not a proper torpedo, but something similar that was about half bomb/half torp

MiloMorai · « **Reply #9 on:** May 11, 2005, 12:28:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by bunch
Iirc, that was not a proper torpedo, but something similar that was about half bomb/half torp

That would be the BT type.

Krusty · « **Reply #10 on:** May 11, 2005, 12:44:00 AM »

I recall that the G was an A with outboard drop tanks. Probably not used on this heavy-arse bomb, due to weight limitations.

Also heard about the tires, but no mention of "beefed up landing gear".

Regardless, I don't think there's anything wrong or over-loaded with what we currently have.

Re: 31mph for WGrs? How? They're metal tubes! Heck you don't lose that much MPH on the P38 and it has 10 of them and wire spindle frame launchers!

I'd sacrifice 25mph if I was bomber hunting. I'd use the 2x(2x20mm) pods for VH busting, for bomber killing (BOOM) and maybe try screwing around with dogfighting in 'em (lol)

MiloMorai · « **Reply #11 on:** May 11, 2005, 01:16:50 AM »

A SC250 caused a loss of 28mph.
A SC500 caused a loss of 34mph.
An ER4 + 4xSC50 caused a loss of 22mph.
A 300l dt caused a loss of 28mph.

This is for an A-6.

Remember the tubes were mounted at an angle. If they weren't draggy, then why were they jettisonable?

You sure about the P-38's speed loss?

MANDO · « **Reply #12 on:** May 11, 2005, 08:02:05 AM »

Arm and and launch triggers for W.Gr21 in 190A8

The system was independent of cannons/MGs.

Kurfürst · « **Reply #13 on:** May 11, 2005, 10:56:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa
So WGr21s + outboard cannons would have no problems...

...but it's impossible to use WGr21 + center rack bombs?

I don`t think it was impossible, certainyl the take off weight is well below what the 190 could handle. The two 21cm rockets would weight about 500kg, a centerline 250-500kg bomb would still mean 750-1000kg bombload. 190 JaBos easily carried such weight and more.

The only reason I can think of why rocket + bombs combo was not used is because the rocket was intended against bomber formations, and as the Germans had cluster bomb containers that were quite more effective than two big-ass rockets, I guess they rather relied on those than two 'Ofenrohr's.

Furball · « **Reply #14 on:** May 11, 2005, 12:14:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by bunch
Iirc, that was not a proper torpedo, but something similar that was about half bomb/half torp

Borpedo....

ahh i crack myself up sometimes...