Author Topic: Bf109K-4 with cannon pods: sources (part II) (Read 6379 times)

MANDO · « **Reply #45 on:** November 28, 2005, 03:50:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bruno
There are no Ami aircraft in AH that take 1/2 ammo. There's standard and overload.

Did they remove that option? Please, go to the hangar, select a P47 or P38 and check the MG loadout option.

Karnak · « **Reply #46 on:** November 28, 2005, 04:06:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MANDO
Did they remove that option? Please, go to the hangar, select a P47 or P38 and check the MG loadout option.

MANDO,

He is saying that the lighter load is the standard load and the heavier load the overload.

I can't speak to that on the American planes, but that is true on the Mosquito Mk VI and N1K2-J.

If the trend started with these new Bf109s and Spitfires holds I would not be surprised to see the Mosquito Mk VI lose it's overload capability or for the La-7 to lose its three cannon option.

Squire · « **Reply #47 on:** November 28, 2005, 05:20:55 PM »

I like the trend towards options that were really used, and that pass a common sense test.

Agree on the Spits and 109s, I think they have been done properly. They don't have every single option available, nor should they, and the rest of the a/c should follow.

Just a quick word on the Spit XVIs rockets, those are correct. There are only 2 of them, its not a very heavy load (compared to Tiffie or Mossie), but the E wing was used to carry them. Its not a "what-if" loadout, and they are strictly air-ground anyways. I have a photo of them being loaded on a 2nd TAF Spit XVI. Im sure Dan has more than I do.

gatt · « **Reply #48 on:** November 28, 2005, 05:45:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
MANDO,

He is saying that the lighter load is the standard load and the heavier load the overload.

I can't speak to that on the American planes, but that is true on the Mosquito Mk VI and N1K2-J.

If the trend started with these new Bf109s and Spitfires holds I would not be surprised to see the Mosquito Mk VI lose it's overload capability or for the La-7 to lose its three cannon option.

Sadly, the trend has begun with the K-4 with no gondolas. I am curious to see if and when allied planes will loose *important* armament loadouts (not 2x12,7mm for 4x7mm).

Bruno,
no one said there were whines about the incoming K-4 with or without gondolas. Sure, no one thought HTC would have eliminated the G-10 and given us a K-4 with only the 30mm option.
We played with the so called inaccurate G-10 for how many years? Five? Where were all the LW experten? This "everything HTC does is perfect" attitude is at least suspect.
And BTW, there are many sources stating that the same Rustsatze was mounted on the G-10 series as well.
And please dont tell me that the 30mm armed 109K-4 is as good at buff hunting as the G-10 with gondolas. Nothing personal, but it would mean that you dont know what buff hunting is in AH and was in RL.

Karnak · « **Reply #49 on:** November 28, 2005, 05:54:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by gatt
Sure, no one thought HTC would have eliminated the G-10 and given us a K-4 with only the 30mm option.

What? This was, I thought, common knowledge long before v2.06 was released.

I certainly knew it the moment Pyro said the Bf109G-10 was going to be removed and the Bf109K-4 added in it's place. That was, as I recall, long before the first Bf109 screenshot was posted.

Squire · « **Reply #50 on:** November 28, 2005, 06:05:53 PM »

"I am curious to see if and when allied planes will loose *important* armament loadouts"

Which is, of course, the real issue with many. Not what the a/c should be armed with or what they should fly like. Its just about "scoring" with your side.

Bruno · « **Reply #51 on:** November 28, 2005, 07:52:39 PM »

Quote

Bruno,
no one said there were whines about the incoming K-4 with or without gondolas.

You said:

Quote

The G-10 had gondolas and no one whined in the past.

No one whined at any time (past, present or future) that the K-4 shouldn't have gondolas. That was HTC decision alone. Saying 'whined in the past' could imply that there was 'whining' at some point.

Quote

Sure, no one thought HTC would have eliminated the G-10 and given us a K-4 with only the 30mm option.

Everyone with eyes to read knew that the AH G-10 was just a K-4 mis-named. Pyro said as much years ago. Everyone knew with 2.06 that the AH G-10 would be re-named 'K-4' and that the load outs would change to reflect that (no MG151/2cm option). There were many post on this forum, do a search.

Quote

Where were all the LW experten? This "everything HTC does is perfect" attitude is at least suspect.
And BTW, there are many sources stating that the same Rustsatze was mounted on the G-10 series as well.

What does that have to do with it? Where were all your whines weeks ago when Pyro asked about 109 load outs? The G-10 had been discussed for years. HTC had other priorities, now with ToD coming they need to get the planes straightened out. That is what they are doing and that is a good thing.

I know what load outs the 109s could carry. Neither of us know why HTC left off the K-4s gondolas. I could careless if any of the 109s had gondolas. The K-4 is fighter and 3cm make it a deadly one and I have no need for gondolas.

Quote

And please dont tell me that the 30mm armed 109K-4 is as good at buff hunting as the G-10 with gondolas. Nothing personal, but it would mean that you dont know what buff hunting is in AH and was in RL.

Really? In the 1st AH Big Week scenario I shot 10 B-17s in 4 frames no losses or damage. I shot down 10 B-17s in the main flying a G-6 no gondolas in one sortie (3cm only). During the last period in which I flew regularly in the AH main I basically just flew the G-6 (several of my G-6 skins were in game prior to the last patch).

Here's a link showing my 'scores' over that time frame.:

See here

According to that page I went 23 B-17 kills with 2 deaths (collisions with warping drones IIRC). I only fly in the AH main occasionally now. However, I flew the first few tours after AH2 (and all the AH2 betas) but didn't and still don't care anything about bombers because they are boring. I am not posting 'scores' to show I am some great player but don't come to me and act like you are the only one who 'knows' anything about playing this game. 3cm is more then enough to kill any plane you get in your sites.

As for real life I know plenty and have many post on this forum for you to go look.

You can start in this this thread.

Quote

I am curious to see if and when allied planes will loose *important* armament loadouts (not 2x12,7mm for 4x7mm).

Squire is right, the above is what it's all about. Those darned EZ-mode allies are always getting over. 'Woe is the Luftwaffe fan...'

MANDO · « **Reply #52 on:** November 28, 2005, 08:32:12 PM »

Bruno, to be success with AH Mk108 you need two things:
1 - Get used to its very poor ballistics and its big dispersion.
2 - Have a smooth game, that is, good frame-rate.

I understand that most 109 flyers will prefer 20mm over 30mm any day, even if you give them a single MG151/20.

gatt · « **Reply #53 on:** November 29, 2005, 02:51:16 AM »

Well Bruno,
you should then know that to be efficient in buff hunting in the long period (I mean hundreds of kills for many TOD's):

- You need to be fast during multiple attacks. The single 30mm burst from 200yds usually means pure luck and a sleeping or busy buff pilot.
- You often need to fire with some deflection, and the 30mm doesnt allow any deflection at high speed.
- You often need to attack with HOs and begin to fire at 500yds for about half/one (a) second and the single 30mm weapon is not the right weapon.
- You need a good ammo load and 65 rounds are not the optimum.
- You need skills: real buff hunting is at altitude, not the lucky jump on a 5K flying Lancaster formation. Up there you need the right aircraft and the right weapon.

In other words the single 30mm, even if deadly, oblige you to *stay there*, close to the buff, for some seconds. The kill in these conditions, with enuff numbers analyzed (*many* kills in *many* TODs) means generally *luck*, not *skill*.

We dont have radar guide to pick bombers climbing and assembling, we dont have the time to assemble FW190A-7/8s, covered by high flying 109G-sK and 190D-9s. We play in the Main, we are often alone and the buff encounters at medium-high altitude are often due to pure luck or a very good experienced eye on the radar. We are not in a Scenario where all this things are planned in advance.

BTW, I expected remarks from players used to double standards: consider only *how many* loadout options have the P-51s and P-47s, even if you consider only the Brownings numbers and ammo loadout. Thinking about those options the K-4 with pods issue looks ridiculous.

It is not difficult to understand that the Rustsatze system means *no standardization*. It means we cannot demonstrate how many G-6, G-14 and K-4 were delivered with or without pods, how many were mounted or dismounted by ground crews, how many pilots changed their decisions during the war.

It means we have little defence against players that dont want a good buff interceptor like the one we had. And this is normal competition in a game. The problem is that even LW experten are now arguing against it, go figure ....

gatt · « **Reply #54 on:** November 29, 2005, 03:44:44 AM »

Hey, BTW, very interesting statistics site! In about 100hrs I should get the updated ones

Bruno · « **Reply #55 on:** November 29, 2005, 07:52:39 AM »

Quote

Well Bruno,
you should then know that to be efficient in buff hunting in the long period (I mean hundreds of kills for many TOD's):

I have played AH since tour 2 or 3 (some time in AH1 beta as well). I have killed 100s of bombers. You can't tell me anything about it I already don't know. The fact you have problems doesn't mean it's universal.

Quote

We dont have radar guide to pick bombers climbing and assembling, we dont have the time to assemble FW190A-7/8s, covered by high flying 109G-sK and 190D-9s. We play in the Main, we are often alone and the buff encounters at medium-high altitude are often due to pure luck or a very good experienced eye on the radar. We are not in a Scenario where all this things are planned in advance.

You can make any rationalization you want but those are your problems.

Quote

I expected remarks from players used to double standards: consider only *how many* loadout options have the P-51s and P-47s, even if you consider only the Brownings numbers and ammo loadout. Thinking about those options the K-4 with pods issue looks ridiculous.

I don't care anything about allied aircraft load out options. It makes no difference to me at all. You aren't 'cheated' because they can carry double ammo and the K-4 only has a 3cm. It's apparent it bothers you though, just as Squire said:

Quote

"I am curious to see if and when allied planes will loose *important* armament loadouts"

Which is, of course, the real issue with many. Not what the a/c should be armed with or what they should fly like. Its just about "scoring" with your side.

Quote

It is not difficult to understand that the Rustsatze system means *no standardization*. It means we cannot demonstrate how many G-6, G-14 and K-4 were delivered with or without pods, how many were mounted or dismounted by ground crews, how many pilots changed their decisions during the war.

It doesn't matter, in AH2 the K-4 doesn't have gondolas. I guess you can post a new 'where's my gondolas' thread every couple of days or learn to adapt.

Quote

It means we have little defence against players that dont want a good buff interceptor like the one we had. And this is normal competition in a game. The problem is that even LW experten are now arguing against it, go figure ....

The K-4 with 3cm is just as able as ever to kill bombers or fighters. The fact you have problems doesn't mean that LW fans are incapable of shooting down bombers. Killing bombers is no 'competition' its boring point and click.

No one is arguing 'against gondolas'. Some just don't believe it's the 'game killer' that folks like yourself have made it out to be. All those things that you claim about how 'useless' a single 3cm cannon is in getting kills is just nonsense. The problems you have as an individual don't translate universally to everyone.

butch2k · « **Reply #56 on:** November 29, 2005, 08:17:28 AM »

Quote

It is not difficult to understand that the Rustsatze system means *no standardization*. It means we cannot demonstrate how many G-6, G-14 and K-4 were delivered with or without pods, how many were mounted or dismounted by ground crews, how many pilots changed their decisions during the war.

Quite the contrary...
It was a de-facto standardisation, indeed every a/c was able to load the rüstsatzen defined for its type. Any K-4 was able to load a droptank or gondolas, it's just a matter or whether they were needed at the time.
DT or gondolas were standards and could be fitted to any 109 (beginning with F-4/R1 for gondolas, beginning with E-7 for the DT). The gondolas were designed so as to be easily removed and put back if needed. The a/c were not necessarily delivered with them when leaving the factory but could at any time be fitted with them. And since gondolas were made in a single model it meant they could be fitted to any 109.

ghi · « **Reply #57 on:** November 29, 2005, 08:36:12 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bruno
[

I bet you would be wrong. If the late 109s are tasked with 'buff hunting' in ToD then ToD will suck and fail. 109s (light gruppe) should be tasked with providing cover for the heavy gruppe, mostly 190s. If 109s fail to cover and protect the true buff hunters and engage the bombers then they should fail their mission. As such there should be no need for the K-4 to have gondolas in ToD. Ya think maybe that is why HTC didn't bother to add them to begin with?

As Dan suggested above this gondola campaign is about: [/B]

Yes , if the FWs are going to be fixed, untill that are only 2 LW planes able to intercept high alt bombers are K-4/Ta152. You have to make passes on a formations, the FWs can't do it . I wonder why did they call the A8 "butcher bird", cuz the way is modeled and the bombers are modeled is useless.

Did you try to intercept a formation of bombers high alt in FWA8/A5 ? The loaded Lancs,B17,24s are outruning/outclimbing any FWs at high alt, but what's curious,the bombing is accurate from 30K full speed, .
the ToD is going to be a joke without major changes,

Bruno · « **Reply #58 on:** November 29, 2005, 11:08:43 AM »

Quote

Yes , if the FWs are going to be fixed, untill that are only 2 LW planes able to intercept high alt bombers are K-4/Ta152. You have to make passes on a formations, the FWs can't do it . I wonder why did they call the A8 "butcher bird", cuz the way is modeled and the bombers are modeled is useless.

Bombers in ToD will be given historical mission profiles. There will be no 'high alt bombers'. Bombers in ETO dropped from an average altitude of about 17k feet. Some as low as 9k feet, few were above 22k feet. Above 22k hit probability dropped off drastically. Even the vaunted B-29 over Japan was forced to drop from lower altitudes because they were incapable hitting their targets above 20k feet. During the discussions in preparation for the Ruhr event I believe Jordi posted a link to bomber sorties showing their cruise and target/drop alt of the bombers. Of the 100s of sorties only around 25 or so were above 22k feet. I will see if I can't find that thread.

That said the FW 190 doesn't need 'fixing'. The A-8 and A-5 in AH are fine. Despite the LWhine propaganda to the contrary their numbers match historic flight data. The A series 190s performance fell of rapidly above 22k feet. Just like they do in AH. As I mentioned above in the first AH Big Week Scenario the alt cap for bombers was 28k. Between 25 and 28k I shot down 10 over 4 frames. I even killed a P-38L and a P-47D-11. Guys in my flight killed several P-51bs as well, all above 25k. The LW flew the G-6 and the A-8 during that event. This issue is only about the Main Arena, lets not pretend its about anything else.

The D-9 in AH actually performs a little better then it should. As forum member Naudet has posted extensively on this forum about the D-9. He recently received from NASM actual flight test data of the D-9.

Quote

But for those that are interested in the FW190D documents from the NASM here are their designations:

1. FW/Fb/FW190-210001 (1-2)
Reel: 8069 Frame: 1153

2. FW/Fb/FW/210001/(3)
Reel: 2861 Frame: 989

3. FW/Fb/FW190-210002 (1,2,3)
Reel: 3996 Frame: 343

4. FW/FW190/Sch/16/3/45
Reel 2731 Frame: 797

Those four together will be exactly 50 pages, so if you order them, you won't exceed the limit per order.

gatt · « **Reply #59 on:** November 29, 2005, 02:34:59 PM »

Butch,
with standardization I meant something easy to carry into AH as standard. The way much of the allied loadout are, so they are (or seem to me) easy to put in the AH2 hangar.

Bruno,
it seems to me you understand only what you want to. The only thing *I* understand from your words is that, again, you really dont know what *efficient* buff killing should be. Saying that our single 30mm is as (or more) efficient at buff killing than 3x20mm with 400rds and that we didnt loose anything from the G-10 to the K-4, says it all. You find buff killing boring, thats probably why you could not care less about it. No problem, but I dont find anything interesting in replying to you.
BTW, Bruno, to see how good you are with the K-4 I took a look at your score (as Batz, is it right?) in the last TOD. But I cant find anything. I dont find almost any K/D above 1 for the entire 2005. Is it me or the score system not working?