Author Topic: Fw 190A-6  (Read 1074 times)

Offline TUXC

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 257
Fw 190A-6
« Reply #15 on: September 05, 2007, 10:56:20 PM »
Krusty, the A-6 will probably draw pilots away from both the A-8 and D-9 for fighter vs. fighter combat in the LW arenas. A-8 will still be used for buff hunting   and attack since it packs the 30mms. A-8 also carries more fuel than the A-6, which is very useful at times. There aren't many A-5s in LW anyway so that's a moot point. Converting our current A-5 to an A-6 and adding an A-4 would give us 190As for EW and MW.

IMO the ideal 190A lineup would be:

A4
A6
A8

I'd love to see an A9 too, but would much rather have an A6 first.
Tuxc123

JG11

Offline 53gunner

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 145
      • http://calliesworld.com
Fw 190A-6
« Reply #16 on: September 06, 2007, 07:11:16 AM »
The spitty folks got that beast of a machine the 16 so why not give us the A6?
Glenn

Offline PanzerIV

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 742
      • http://17thawsquad.aowc.net/main.asp
Fw 190A-6
« Reply #17 on: September 07, 2007, 10:13:58 PM »
Best Fw190 is likely the D9, show me the turn radius of the A6 and it might shut me up if it isnt anything exceptional for a German fighter, I love the 190s and 152, just how they look and their fierce reputation as fighters, bomber-destroyers,and  ground-attack.

Offline 53gunner

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 145
      • http://calliesworld.com
Fw 190A-6
« Reply #18 on: September 07, 2007, 11:59:42 PM »
Yeah the D9 rocks. Im a BIG fan of the F8 as well

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Fw 190A-6
« Reply #19 on: September 08, 2007, 02:01:56 AM »
D9 was supposed to turn best of all 190s, but in this game it doesn't seem to.


I'm against the A4/A6 pair. I've said "why" regarding the A6. A-4 is still almost 99.9999% identical to the A-5.


FYI the gas tank in the 190a8 is what destabilizes it so horribly. The CoG is too far back because of this. Historically they countered it with the ETC rack. Here that doesn't help at all (no weight to the rack!). Historically they flew with the racks even if they didn't carry anything on them! Here it doesn't even work.

My "best" lineup for the 190As would be:

190A-3 (first major combat variant, as early as it gets and still being realistic)
190a5 (can sub for an A4 as it's almost identical)
190a8 (what we've got now, but make the ETC rack permanent, and move the COG forward to reflect this!)
190a8/R-whatever (STURM unit, heavier, but heavily armored, can withstand bombers' defensive fire)

Perhaps make the last one a sturm version of the 190A-9 for naming purposes (and differentiation).

With that list you get the best early model (sorely lacking in scenarios) the best middle version (more ammo than the A-3, more power than the A-3, less ammo and power than the A-8, but less weight than the A-8, perfectly balanced mid-way between the A3 and A8), the "late" version we have now, and a "late" version highly specialized that could be seriously used in scenarios.

Take the Der Grosse Schlag scenario, for example. Historically the 190a8s were heavily armored and were able to make dead 6 attacks straight in, losing "only 1 or 2 out of the squadron" and shooting down droves of bombers. If any allied fighters sneeze at 'em they die, but against bombers they would be a terror. Instead, we're using non-specialized, UNARMORED 190a8s in this game to simulate the same thing -- guess what? They don't last half a second against the bombers they supposedly terrorized. Oh sure there's ways around it, but it's totally not a historical matchup or a recreation of what happened.

So that's why I'd like to see a sturm unit. Perk it in the MA if needed (although it'll be so heavy and slow I doubt it'll need it), but in scenarios it'd be a massive gift to all axis planners doing an ETO setup with LW vs USAF bombers.

Offline Bino

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5938
Fw 190A-6
« Reply #20 on: September 08, 2007, 09:55:43 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Krusty "...190a5 (can sub for an A4 as it's almost identical)..."

The major change from the A-4 to the A-5 was the lengthening of the engine mount and fuselage ahead of the wings by nearly six inches, to move the center of gravity forward.
Quote
"...Take the Der Grosse Schlag scenario, for example. Historically the 190a8s were heavily armored and were able to make dead 6 attacks straight in, losing 'only 1 or 2 out of the squadron' and shooting down droves of bombers.... "

I agree, the FW-190A-8/R8 is what the DGS "Sturm" units should be flying.
At the very least, the A-8/R7, which included all the extra armor & armor glass.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2007, 09:58:07 AM by Bino »


"The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'." - Randy Pausch

PC Specs

Offline Bosco123

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3604
Fw 190A-6
« Reply #21 on: September 08, 2007, 10:50:23 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by SpikesX
We need more Italian airplanes.


We do.
as most people know that I am a 190 dweeb, I like to fly the A-8, I truly belive that, that is the hardest fighter to fly. it will be great in DGS with those 30mm. but anyways, I will have to decline another 190 in the game because we have about 5 190's and only 2 italian aircraft.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2007, 10:55:36 AM by Bosco123 »
Skifurd AKA "Bosco"
Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Operator
United States Marine
"Stay ahead of the game, Stay ahead of the plane."