Author Topic: 3 more planes needed for upcoming ToD 8th U.S. Army Air Force vs Luftwaffe  (Read 1358 times)

Offline 1K3

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3449
3 more planes needed for upcoming ToD 8th U.S. Army Air Force vs Luftwaffe
« Reply #15 on: December 22, 2005, 05:46:53 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Pooface
errr, talking about new variants huh??:huh

ive always wondered that about you ike. WHY, why oh why do you request things after they've been remodelled lol :D
 


Hey i requested for spit 8, spit 16, and a reduced spit 5 boost and now its in AH!:)

i wasnt around for teh lobbying whenn P-38s and 190s were beiing remodled.

Offline JAWS2003

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
3 more planes needed for upcoming ToD 8th U.S. Army Air Force vs Luftwaffe
« Reply #16 on: December 23, 2005, 10:59:30 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Krusty
To what end? ToD is already going to focus on 109s/190s vs p47s/p51s and b17s/b24s. The 190a4, 190a5, and 190a6 are all 90% identical to each other. The 4->5 introduced a 6 inch longer nose and the 5->6 introduced MG151 instead of MGFF in outboard wings (which our 190a8 already has, so no big loss). If you have one, you have them all, and we have one (the a5).
".



You are wrong Krusty. The A6 had a new lighter wing that could carry not only the mg151/20 in outer wing, but it could carry the mk108 inside, or the other toys in gondola like mk103 or twin mg151/20. on top of that is faster then A4 or A5. Actually I read somewhere that was faster then A8.
   A6 was the first FW to have all this rustsatze:
  - R1  (gondola with twin mg151/20),
  - R2  (mk108 in or under the wing)
  - R3  ( Mk 103 gondola under the wing
  - R4  ( installation for GM-1 boost for high altitude)
  - R5  ( 115 liter tank for MW-50 installation or fuel)

So as you can see the A6 is way better for the bomber offensive  then A5 or A4.
 Having all four 20mm  cannons with identical ballistics is great. If you don't have the A6 you have 4xMG 151/20 only when A8 is in (april 1944).
  I'd say A6 is essential for 1943.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2005, 11:01:44 AM by JAWS2003 »

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
3 more planes needed for upcoming ToD 8th U.S. Army Air Force vs Luftwaffe
« Reply #17 on: December 23, 2005, 11:56:26 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by JAWS2003
You are wrong Krusty. The A6 had a new lighter wing that could carry not only the mg151/20 in outer wing, but it could carry the mk108 inside, or the other toys in gondola like mk103 or twin mg151/20. on top of that is faster then A4 or A5. Actually I read somewhere that was faster then A8.
   A6 was the first FW to have all this rustsatze:
  - R1  (gondola with twin mg151/20),
Incorrect. This was used on the A5. I did some research for Erich Hondt when I skinned his plane, he used them on an A5.
  - R2  (mk108 in or under the wing)
I don't think the A6 had anything other than MG151 over the A5
  - R3  ( Mk 103 gondola under the wing
I don't think the A6 had anything other than MG151 over the A5
  - R4  ( installation for GM-1 boost for high altitude)
I don't think the A6 had anything other than MG151 over the A5
  - R5  ( 115 liter tank for MW-50 installation or fuel)
I don't think the A6 had anything other than MG151 over the A5

So as you can see the A6 is way better for the bomber offensive  then A5 or A4.
 Having all four 20mm  cannons with identical ballistics is great. If you don't have the A6 you have 4xMG 151/20 only when A8 is in (april 1944).
  I'd say A6 is essential for 1943.


Consider gameplay. If the only difference between the A6 and A8 is that the A8 is a horribly modeled pig of a plane, but both have 4x20mm MG151s, there's little reason to ever fly the A8. By keeping the 2xMG151s and the 2xMGFF/Ms we have an armament difference as well, and a marked distinction between the two models in AH.

A-6 didn't have a lightened wing, just slightly redesigned to take outboard MG151s. They didn't equip A6s with 30mm guns from anything I've heard. That came later, when the massive bombers required heavier firepower than "just" 4x20mm could provide.

A-6 was, if anything, a few mph faster than the A-5. A-8, however, has more power (but less top speed), so if you want to kill bombers take the A8 or the D9. The A6 was a fighter more than a bomber interceptor. (A8 was too, but I won't get into that discussion :) )

Offline Treize69

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5597
      • http://grupul7vanatoare.homestead.com/Startpage.html
3 more planes needed for upcoming ToD 8th U.S. Army Air Force vs Luftwaffe
« Reply #18 on: December 23, 2005, 12:38:57 PM »
Before ANYTHING new, revamp the Lanc, Mossie, and 110.

And as for the 210/410 numbers being "inconsequential", I can think off the top of my head of several 8th AAF pilots (just a quick scan of the record for the 4th in the spring of '44 shows- Col Blakesleee, 5March44; Maj Goodson on 20March44; Lt Biel on 20March44; Lt Chatterly on 11April44[probable]; Lt Biel on 17April44) who shot them down- and one (Capt J Morris of the 20th FG, top ETO P-38 ace) who was shot down by one.

By no means as important a type as the 110, but still present in decent numbers, and just as dangerous an opponent as anything else in the sky at the time.
Treize (pronounced 'trays')- because 'Treisprezece' is too long and even harder to pronounce.

Moartea bolșevicilor.