The jugfire

[Hooligan]

The Ta-152 saw combat because the Germans were losing and badly.  If the US had been in the desperate straits of Germany, then undoubtedly the P-51H, F8F and others would have seen combat also.

Since anybody can arbitrarily choose criteria to allow or disallow late-war production aircraft, why beat around the bush with “saw combat”, “fully equipped squadrons” etc…  Just be honest and say:  The XYZ plane should/should not be added to AH because I like/dislike it.

Hooligan

[Toad]

W,

Check my reply to GRUNHERZ up-thread. I know the Ta-152 was deployed in squadron strength with mechanics and spares.

In short, it was in fact an OPERATIONAL airplane.

I would suggest to you that an undeployed aircraft, without a squadron of trained pilots, mechanics and a supply of spare parts was NOT an OPERATIONAL airplane.

I am not surprised that those who are looking for an edge would NOT want to use those conditions as qualification for inclusion.

Better to use the "well, it was engaged one time" rule if you're looking for an advantage for the losing side, isn't it?  

Hope that clears it up.

(..and before you start accusing me of bias or whatever, please review some old posts and realize that I'm on record for introducing the D-9, the 262 and the -152 as unperked aircraft.)

I don't care what anyone flies, don't care if they perk anything or nothing. Don't really care what they choose to add or not add to the game in terms of aircraft either.

I just play.

[-ammo-]

Originally posted by Wmaker:
Nope Ammo...it isn't flawed. I agree with your points but it doesn't change the fact that those props were fitted to planes that were allready long off the production lines. At least to me a new greatly improved prop like that when installed makes D-11 early '44 fighter. Nothing bad about that. It's just that when the real G-10 which AH is modelling came out the factory it had the performance it had from right there.

As I said I agree with you why things were the way they were but "why" doesn't change the fact that things happened/were that way.

I'll give you an example. Personally I can't see why AH should have aircraft like P-51H or F8F since they didn't fight in the war itself. They were deployed but if they didn't see action I can't count them as being World War 2 aircraft. So therefore they shouldn't be in the game IMO. But there have been arguments that since Allies didn't have any need for them in the end of the war they didn't see action and that's no reason to exclude them from the game. History is history and if AH is a flight sim featuring various WW2 aircraft I think it really doesn't matter why certain aircraft didn't see action as long as they didn't they shouldn't be in a combat sim featuring WW2 aircraft.

A little long and probably too hot topic for an example but it was the best I could come up with. Now I hope that everyone would be smart enough and not start arguing about the above since it's not the topic of this thread...I really don't want to be a thread hijacker. It's just an example, that's all.

...do you see my point ammo?

----------------

1Wmaker1
  (Image removed from quote.)

<S> Yes I see your point and respectfully disagree. You have an opinion and how and why certain AC should be included/excluded from the planeset and in what form they should appear. As a matter of fact you argue your point pretty good. I just dont see it that way. First, I dont believe that the 109G6 came straight from the factory with a Mk 108 cannon, however I do believe that armouror's could and did equip them so. I also know that some 109G6's were equiped with the Mk108 at the factory. This is only an example. By the same token a very small percentage of the FG's equiped with P-47's ( all of them practically prior to the P-51 showing up) actually were equiped with the 6 gun package, however crews may have removed a few at the request of their pilots or to add a camera or whatever. As the war progressed innovations abounded. All sides strived to make their weapons and weapon platforms more deadly and efficient. I think it is silly to suggest that their is any difference between the examples I have stated adn the inclusion of the paddle blade prop. I also know that HTC has their own way of determining what gets in the game and what does not how they come to the decision. I think its simply because they wanted it in the game . Personally I think since D11's flew in combat with paddle blade props than that is what should be modeled and I cant see how you can argue it down given that it is true. But you have your opinion and that is OK by me. However let the record state that I think my opinion is much better and based on more facts than yours

<S>!!

[eddiek]

<S> Ammo.............ya always have a way of stating things much more eloquently than me!  

I tend to take the "sledge hammer and beat it into their skulls" approach, while you tactfully disagree.  I like your method better!  

Like I said, if it ain't modeled like what took to the air in combat, it ain't accurate.

[Toad]

BTW, when do we get that excellent contemporary of the later FW's, deployed in strength, operational units abounding, saw LOTS of combat....

...called the Spitfire Mk XIV or something like that?

Unperked, of course.  

[GRUNHERZ]

The MK108 engine cannon in the 109G6 was not a field mod!

Only came from the factory as the weapon mounting, weapon orientation, installatian, ammo feed, ammo storage area, spent case ejection, are 100% different in every way from the MG151/20.

Once again, you guys dont have a point!  

[-ammo-]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
The MK108 engine cannon in the 109G6 was not a field mod!

Only came from the factory as the weapon mounting, weapon orientation, installatian, ammo feed, ammo storage area, spent case ejection, are 100% different in every way from the MG151/20.

Once again, you guys dont have a point!  

Ill have to do some research grun, I don't believe that yet. But nevertheless my point still is valid whether the G6 had the cannon from the getgo or not. The P-47 loadout option was a field mod. The rocket assist pods on the Arado was a field mounted thing when they had the fuel..and only when the discovered a fuel that wasnt so volatile it blew up in their face.  I imagine if we were to sit down and research, we would find alot of things that were retrofitted in the field.

And this is only if that truly was the guideline HTC uses to determine the the model and options of their AC. Thats my point.

[Buzzbait]

S!

The argument that the P-47D-11 shouldn't have a paddle blade prop is completely spurious.

The fact is, the 'Factory' equipped aircraft with paddle blade props did not begin until the D-24 series.  Those planes were not generally delivered until June and July of '44.

In the meantime, all the earlier model 47D's were retro-fitted with the paddle blade, just like all the earlier 47D's without Water injection were also retro-fitted with it in the Fall of '43.

During the most crucial period of the airwar over Germany, that being January to May '44, when the Germans suffered their largest proportionate losses and had the cream of their fighter pilots killed, the Razorback Jugs with retro-fitted paddle blade bore the load.  They made up approx. 40% of the USAAF fighter force, the remainder being approx. 25% P-51B and 35% P-38J Lightnings.

Unlike the later model P-47D25 and later, these paddle blade Razorbacks were designed to fight the German Interceptors, not to function in a ground attack role.  They were the best performing P-47D's.

To use a chickenshit argument that they were not 'Factory Equipped' has zero merit considering the aircraft's role.  3,000 Razorback P-47D's got the Paddle blade.  To suggest that isn't enough is nonsense.

All the FW190D's manufactured prior to Janurary '45 DID NOT HAVE MW-50!!  So I guess that means we immediatly must demand that the FW190D have its performance reduced to that of the non-MW50 equipped model then, right?  

Of course not.  

And for the same reason the P-47D11 should come with the Paddle Blade prop.  Any other response is simple nitpicking and not worthy of any serious consideration.

[eddiek]

Easy Buzzbait!  Easy big fella..........whew!    
Remember, it's Pyro's call whether or not a paddle blade prop is modeled on the D-11, not the pilots in here.  
I guess I can chalk you up for one vote in the "we want what saw combat, not factory stock" category?  

[ 08-04-2001: Message edited by: eddiek ]

[Staga]

There's already two P-47s with paddle-prop and you want it to that third one too ?

[gripen]

AFAIK most of the FW-190Ds manufactured before January 1945 had a system called Oldenburg which was a water injection system too.

Gripen

[ 08-04-2001: Message edited by: gripen ]

[R4M]

Originally posted by Buzzbait:
S!

The argument that the P-47D-11 shouldn't have a paddle blade prop is completely spurious.

The fact is, the 'Factory' equipped aircraft with paddle blade props did not begin until the D-24 series.  Those planes were not generally delivered until June and July of '44.

In the meantime, all the earlier model 47D's were retro-fitted with the paddle blade, just like all the earlier 47D's without Water injection were also retro-fitted with it in the Fall of '43.

During the most crucial period of the airwar over Germany, that being January to May '44, when the Germans suffered their largest proportionate losses and had the cream of their fighter pilots killed, the Razorback Jugs with retro-fitted paddle blade bore the load.  They made up approx. 40% of the USAAF fighter force, the remainder being approx. 25% P-51B and 35% P-38J Lightnings.

Unlike the later model P-47D25 and later, these paddle blade Razorbacks were designed to fight the German Interceptors, not to function in a ground attack role.  They were the best performing P-47D's.

To use a chickenshit argument that they were not 'Factory Equipped' has zero merit considering the aircraft's role.  3,000 Razorback P-47D's got the Paddle blade.  To suggest that isn't enough is nonsense.

All the FW190D's manufactured prior to Janurary '45 DID NOT HAVE MW-50!!  So I guess that means we immediatly must demand that the FW190D have its performance reduced to that of the non-MW50 equipped model then, right?  

Of course not.  

And for the same reason the P-47D11 should come with the Paddle Blade prop.  Any other response is simple nitpicking and not worthy of any serious consideration.

fine, yes. Agree, yah. At all.

Now, where is the MW50 and GM1 for the Me109G6?. I'm already missing them.

I also miss the ASM engine wich so many of them carried. AH's 109G6 carries a DB605A...Where is the DB605ASM?

ANd the underwing gondolas with MK108s. I also do miss them.

You got a P47D11 wich is great for 1943 scenarios. The argument for the 109G6 to be a so early model was just that: to make it usable in 1943 scenarios. So either you let both as they are, or you put both with their respective retrofitted gadgets.

IMO  


Oh, and BTW, you have to take a second look at that thing you say about the Fw190D9 not being fitted with MW50 until january of 1945. And in any case the performance in altitude of the AH's Fw190D9 is a mix between the MW50 fitted one and the non-MW50 fitted one. At SL it does 375mph (wich shows it carries MW50). At 18k it does 430mph only. THe real plane with MW50 was able to make up to 445mph without external rack and 440 with it. The real plane without MW50 did around 426mph.

as you see a very curious ad-hoc MW50 we have in the D9  

[ 08-04-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]

[R4M]

BTW a thorough revision of the fantasy Jabo load of the P47D30 wont hurt either.  

[Toad]

Guess the WW2OL "Promised Land" didn't turn out to be all full of milk and honey.

[R4M]

Originally posted by Toad:
Guess the WW2OL "Promised Land" didn't turn out to be all full of milk and honey.

huh? dont get it