Author Topic: 190A-8 and 190F-8 ... identical performance??  (Read 1505 times)

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
190A-8 and 190F-8 ... identical performance??
« Reply #15 on: December 19, 2004, 06:51:09 AM »
I want to see the AB500/250 with SD-4 HEAT bomblets!!

Tanks in the open = PanzerPanik!!




Weapons used by the 190 Series:




Crumpp

Offline Loddar

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 204
190A-8 and 190F-8 ... identical performance??
« Reply #16 on: December 19, 2004, 07:13:32 AM »
Wow very nice :aok

I want all these loadouts for the 190 :D

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
190A-8 and 190F-8 ... identical performance??
« Reply #17 on: December 19, 2004, 08:04:29 AM »
Quote
The F series is a speciallized ground attack varient. Internally if carries a lot more armour and speciallized ground attack systems. It also has extra drag from external hardpoints


Only later production F-8s had the extra armor removed. We had this discussion before Crumpp. I posted diagrams with weight break of FW 190F-8 armor.  

Early production F-8s had additional armor (same as the F-3). To reduce weight the additional armor was dropped from production.

On the underside of the engine starting from the oil cooler armored ring moving aft to under the engine, pilot seat and ending under the aft fuel tank ran either 5 or 6mm plate. Along the engine area it "wrapped" up a bit on the sides. Other then that it had the same armor as the non-Sturmbock FW 190A-8.

The FW 190F-8 is my most favorite plane of World War 2 flew it quite a bit in AH over the Antons.

Here's an account a FW 190 pilot, Hauptmann Erhard Jähnert Staffelkapitän of 2./Schlachtgeschwader 3, recounting his 599th mission flying a FW 190F-8 over of the Kurland Bridgehead:

Quote
On 16 February 1945, I attacked enemy armor in my Focke Wolf 190. It had already gotten quite close to our main line of resistance in foggy weather about 10 kilometers southeast of Tukkum.

Three of my comrades closed up with me when I designated the target. We dove on the group of armor and fired our rockets. I was fortunate enough to knock out three enemy tanks in three passes. Three more were crippled by my comrades. Since I expended my rockets, I tried to destroy the remaining tanks, which had already turned back, with my on-board weapons. In the process my aircraft took one or two hits in the lubrication system and also in the compass connections.

Orientation was no longer possible. Vision forward was prevented by the oil film that built up on the front windshield. The cockpit canopy was also stuck, so I sat in my aircraft as if I were in a coffin.

When the engine oil ran out and the engine temperature rose, I had to make an emergency landing. I could only see to the rear, so, with a “look back” I landed on an open field near an abandoned artillery position about 30 meters from a farmstead and 80 meters from a high-tension electric line.

I am certain that my landing rates as a most extraordinary piece of good luck in aviation.

I had neither pistol nor identification with me. When I saw several soldiers in camouflage parkas draw near I grabbed the flare pistol from the cockpit and waited.

Again my luck held. They were Latvians from one of the two Latvian Waffen-SS divisions. They took me to their battalion command post.

I was well received in the grenadiers’ bunker and fed. Soon I was driven back to my airfield.


Incidentally, Erhard Jähnert received the knights cross on 18 May 1943 as a Leutnant flying Stukas while attached to Stukageschwader 4.

Later as Staffelkapitän of 9./Stukageschwader 2, he took part in that squadrons greatest success when it sank 3 soviet destroyers in the Black Sea south of the Crimea.

He was later removed from combat duty and assigned as an instructor. In the fall of 1944 at his own personal request he was transferred to the Kurland Bridgehead and made Staffelkapitän of 2./Schlachtgeschwader 3.

He destroyed 25 Soviet tanks while flying the FW 190F-8 over Kurland. On the day of surrender he took what passengers he could and flew out of Kurland and landed at Flensburg. He was put up for the oak leaves but in the hectic days just prior to German capitulation the award never went through.

While the load out chart that Crumpp posted shows the load outs for the entire 190A / F and G series not all those load out saw operational service. PB rockets were rare and never part of a 'standard load out option'.

The load out for the F-8 is same load out as carried by the F-8 in FB/AEP/PF and is the standard load out for the F8 variant we have in AH. I would love to see rockets (be they PB or others) modeled for the F-8, and along time ago Pyro indicated he would was considering modelling them as well. However, let's not pretend that PB's or rockets were  a standard or even an 'important' load out that is missing for the F-8. They maybe more important in terms of an internet game like AH but not in the context of history.

If anything a larger array of bomb types would be more 'appropriate'  or 'common' then the more rare PB rockets.

Performance wise the A-8 and the F-8 are indentical in AH and should be.

They are basiaclly the same plane:

AH Normal loaded weight:

F8 weight 9849 lbs.

A8 weight 9682 lbs.

In FB/PF/AEP (according to the object viewer:

FB take off weight:

F8 4,150 kg, 4270 (9414 lbs) with the 115-liter interanl tank

A8 4,250 kg, 4,360 kg (9612 lbs) with the 115-liter internal tank

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
190A-8 and 190F-8 ... identical performance??
« Reply #18 on: December 19, 2004, 08:41:52 AM »
Quote
Only later production F-8s had the extra armor removed. We had this discussion before Crumpp. I posted diagrams with weight break of FW 190F-8 armor.


You need to post that again.  The FW-190F8 had the extra armour.  




Some sights on the internet have taken the statement:
"Was indistinguishable from the FW-190A8" and taken it to mean it was the same plane.

It was not.  


Quote
Early production F-8s had additional armor (same as the F-3). To reduce weight the additional armor was dropped from production.


Now some late war FW-190F8's were converted back to A8 standards.  This is the case with "White 1".  The Armour was removed as well as the Grossebombenelectrik.  This was not a factory modification.

It is very possible that some of the new built FW-190F8's late war were made to A8 standard.  These were ground attack varients in name only.  Just like White 1, they were intended to supplement the fighters and fulfill the fighter role.

They would have had the universal wing with the outboard cannon bulges, no belly armour, and no Grossebombenelectrik.

There is nothing out there I have found, with the exception of a few internet sites, that say anything about the F8 armour being removed on the production line.  The Luftwaffe documentation I have denotes the additional armour as part of the varient, list production dates, and design changes, but lists nothing about removing the extra armour from production series.

Crumpp
« Last Edit: December 19, 2004, 09:16:49 AM by Crumpp »

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
190A-8 and 190F-8 ... identical performance??
« Reply #19 on: December 19, 2004, 09:19:13 AM »
The side plates were removed from SG3 and SG4 in kurland, they flew ground attack exclusively. Pilot accounts state the F-8 coming from the factory were without the added armor and noted the comparison with the older F8s and the few F-3s they had.

So no the later production F8s, without added armor, were not just 'F-8s in name only'.

In fact the F-8 data as used by Oleg in FB (take off weight; no bombs) the F-8 is slightly lighter the A-8 due to the removal of the out board cannons.

FYI,

JG 5 did fly ground attack missions. 13./JG 5 (White1 W.Nr. 931 862  originated in 13./JG 5 before being re-assigned to 9./JG 5).They  flew out of Petsamo in aid of German ground forces. After Germans were expelled from Finland there was no reason (except anti-shipping) for ground attack missions.  

You can read about that here:

http://www.white1foundation.org/white1_history2.htm

IV./JG 5 had a collection of aircrafts form G-6s and G-2 to A-3s and A-8s and F-8s. At one point (see 8.44 in the link below) they  were using 109Ts etc...

Folow the link below:

http://www.ww2.dk./oob/bestand/jagd/bivjg5.html

JG 5 was a back water and received what aircraft that could be spared and these would be pressed into in service be it in the fighter role, anti-shipping or ground attack as the situation required..

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
190A-8 and 190F-8 ... identical performance??
« Reply #20 on: December 19, 2004, 09:21:34 AM »
I will have to dig through discs to find the F-8 armor diagrams I don't seem have it on my HD any more. I am sure I saved umm...

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
190A-8 and 190F-8 ... identical performance??
« Reply #21 on: December 19, 2004, 09:35:17 AM »
Quote
The side plates were removed from SG3 and SG4 in kurland, they flew ground attack exclusively.  Pilot accounts state the F-8 coming from the factory were without the added armor and noted the comparison with the older F8s and the few F-3s they had.


All Geschwader level mods, Wotan.  That does not mean it is not applicable in AH.

Additionally they removed only the SIDE  Plates.  A smart mod IMO if you had to remove some armour.  They did not remove the belly armour.

Now the Pilot anecdotes may or may not point to the factory removing the armour.  Did you hear this first hand?  

Are they the ones picking the Aircraft up from the factory or depot?

There is no way to know and although I very much believe the pilots' sincerity, mistakes are common.

Again, according to the Luftwaffe documentation I have does not show the armour was officially removed.  

Quote
JG 5 did fly ground attack missions. 13./JG 5 (White1 W.Nr. 931 862 originated in 13./JG 5 before being re-assigned to 9./JG 5).They flew out of Petsamo in aid of German ground forces. After Germans were expelled from Finland there was no reason (except anti-shipping) for ground attack missions.


Yes I know.  I am the Membership Director for the White 1 Foundation.

JG 5 is a poor example for intended use of the FW-190 for just the reasons you state.  There where many "non-doctrinal" modifications and uses of equipment in the Luftwaffe and it is very easy to support almost any argument.  

Going by Luftwaffe doctrine and official modifications then my information is correct.

What occurred in the field is not always going to reflect this just as many Western Militaries do not follow their own doctrine to the letter today.  Which supports your argument.

Crumpp
« Last Edit: December 19, 2004, 10:11:29 AM by Crumpp »

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
190A-8 and 190F-8 ... identical performance??
« Reply #22 on: December 19, 2004, 10:15:22 AM »
That is an early production F-8 you posted the armour diagram for Crumpp.

quote: "Just like White 1, they were intended to supplement the fighters and fulfill the fighter role."

We can now add some more 190s to that 15,000.:)

Since you like to use einsatz so much, you can use Kraft-Eier instead of "power-egg".

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
190A-8 and 190F-8 ... identical performance??
« Reply #23 on: December 19, 2004, 10:21:05 AM »
Quote
Milo says:
That is an early production F-8 you posted the armour diagram for Crumpp.


You made the statement, Milo.  Prove it.

Crumpp

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
190A-8 and 190F-8 ... identical performance??
« Reply #24 on: December 19, 2004, 10:33:44 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
You made the statement, Milo.  Prove it.

Crumpp


Your the 190 expert:rolleyes: Crumpp, so it should be no problem for you to know why.:)  It is very obvious.:aok

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
190A-8 and 190F-8 ... identical performance??
« Reply #25 on: December 19, 2004, 10:53:55 AM »
Quote
That is an early production F-8 you posted the armour diagram for Crumpp.


I have stated what I know based on original documentation, Milo.

Pick yourself up a copy of:



It cover the F varients under the "Assault Ship" enclosures.  The document is a translation of a Luftwaffe document detailing all the design changes, production dates, service dates, etc..  for each varient of the FW-190 thru the Ta-152.  You can find it in Wright Pattersons Archives.

Now back up your statement.  Show us this is just an early production F8.  Your full of it, Milo.  The FW-190F16 was produced with the armour so why would the F8 suddenly lose it?  And yes, over 760 F16's were delivered before the war's end.

Crumpp

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
190A-8 and 190F-8 ... identical performance??
« Reply #26 on: December 19, 2004, 11:36:49 AM »
So much for you being the Fw190 expert Crumpp.:rofl

Then, there is the outer Mg151/20s in your illustration.:eek:

To help you, compare



and




Got any W.Nr. for those F-16s?

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
190A-8 and 190F-8 ... identical performance??
« Reply #27 on: December 19, 2004, 11:44:31 AM »
Quote
Then, there is the outer Mg151/20s in your illustration.



What are doing here??  Your losing it, Milo.

The illustrations come out of Alfred Price's book.  They are based on the ones in the manual which does not show the wings.  Now the armour is accurate.  If you have an issue with Price because his generic drawing to illustrate the armour includes outer MG's take it up with him.

 
Quote
Got any W.Nr. for those F-16s?


Yep.

Crumpp

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
190A-8 and 190F-8 ... identical performance??
« Reply #28 on: December 19, 2004, 12:00:06 PM »
Quote
They did not remove the belly armour.


Now re-read what I wrote and tell me exactly what I said about the 'belly armor':  

Here I will quote if or you:

Quote
On the underside of the engine starting from the oil cooler armored ring moving aft to under the engine, pilot seat and ending under the aft fuel tank ran either 5 or 6mm plate. Along the engine area it "wrapped" up a bit on the sides. Other then that it had the same armor as the non-Sturmbock FW 190A-8.


I also said that the 'cockpit' err side plates were not installed during production, not that they were removed in the field (at least according to SG3):

Quote
The side plates were removed from SG3 and SG4 in kurland, they flew ground attack exclusively. Pilot accounts state the F-8 coming from the factory were without the added armor and noted the comparison with the older F8s and the few F-3s they had.


I said all along that the only added armor the F-8 had beyond the A-8 was underside plate.

If you are the membership directory for white 1 then they must be desperate. The last time we had this discussion you hadn't even heard of umm...

But whatever you used white 1 as an example of an F8 that wasn't 'really an F8' (at least in the context of ground attack).

I just pointed out the unique situation JG5 was in and because white 1 flew regular fighter missions doesn't mean that all F-8s with out side armor were there to supplement fighter strength.

Quote
just like White 1, they were intended to supplement the fighters and fulfill the fighter role.


In Kurland they didn't...

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
190A-8 and 190F-8 ... identical performance??
« Reply #29 on: December 19, 2004, 12:14:28 PM »
Quote
The side plates were removed from SG3 and SG4 in kurland, they flew ground attack exclusively.


Exactly, as you wrote it sounds like a Geschwader level modification.

Quote
Pilot accounts state the F-8 coming from the factory were without the added armor and noted the comparison with the older F8s and the few F-3s they had.


Sounds like Anecdotal evidence that all the extra armour was not added at the factory.

Your post was not as clear as you think it was when you wrote it, Wotan.  

So to recap.

Now it stands that only the side plates were removed at the factory according to the anecdotal evidence?

And these were not used as fighters?

Is that correct?  We obviously have to nail down the problem before we can discuss it.

Because the discussion was NOT about just the side armour plates, it was about the EXTRA armour period.


Quote
Wotan says:
Only later production F-8s had the extra armor removed. We had this discussion before Crumpp. I posted diagrams with weight break of FW 190F-8 armor.Early production F-8s had additional armor (same as the F-3). To reduce weight the additional armor was dropped from production.


Which is NOT the same as:

Quote
Wotan:
I just pointed out the unique situation JG5 was in and because white 1 flew regular fighter missions doesn't mean that all F-8s without side armor were there to supplement fighter strength.


White 1 had ALL of it's extra armour removed.

Quote
If you are the membership directory for white 1 then they must be desperate. The last time we had this discussion you hadn't even heard of umm...


Nice Cheap Shot.  Running out of facts?

We had this discussion a LONG time ago.  Before I spent a lot of money, time, and effort in research, traveling to various archives, interviewing Luftwaffe personnel, and writing a book.  Things are obviously different now.

Crumpp
« Last Edit: December 19, 2004, 12:20:50 PM by Crumpp »