FW190 F8, External Loadout's

[brady]

After reading yet another post about the FW 190's missing loadout options I decided to pull out my books on the FW 190 and do some digging, I did some surfing to.What I came up with was the following list of "missing options", these options are the ones that have(or seam to)merit for addation to AH.

Bombs:


 The basic "F8" was to to have been capable of carying a 500kg bomb on the centerline (or 4 50KG bombs on a bracket), and one 160KG bomb (or 2 50KG bombs) on each wing.

Rockets:
 
 A program was started to test the abality of the panzerschrek rocket to be fired from the F8 aganst armor in the east this program was not finished howeaver, apparentaly it went so well they just went ahead and started to use the rockets, the RLM accepted the system.the system was then improved at least 2 more times, the second phase, the panzerblitz I came in late 44. In early 45 55mm AP rockets were fitted on a pair of racks each with 6 rockets under the wings.
 This system was used and improved appon over time as is evedenced by the continued development of the concept.

Big bombs:

 I found no evedence of 1000KG bombs being used in a regular way what so ever.
 Howeaver the F8/U2 and F8/U3 were special varients capable of carying the 700KG BT700 and the 1,400KK BT1400 respectavely, these were special torpedo bombs for antishiping or hardned targets. KG200 was the only unit( I beleave) to have used them and in very limited numbers.

A8 Rustsatze:
 The following are 2 field conversion kits that were often fitted to the A8 series.

 R-2 MK 108 cannon under each wing.
 R-12 Mk 108 cannon in each outer wing.

 The abality to use the AT rockets or to cary 8 50KG or 2 160KG and 1 500KG bomb would greatly enhance the F8's abality to do it's main mishion , JABO. Since their is a ton of evedence to support these options i would hope they could be added in the future.

 Sources:
 
  Focke Wulf FW 190
  Robert Grinsel

  FW 190 in Action
  Jerry l. Campbell

  Wings of the Luftwaffe
  Capt Erich Brown

  Encylopedia of Military Aircraft
   Angelucci

  TM 1985 series.

[Wotan]

punt

Hey brady did some checking any thing outside of what he posted here falls in to the category of "experimental". One of the biggest problems coming up with definate proof is that alot of the common "field mods" aren't documented or the documentation is lost.

So we cant open a can of worms in which anything goes.

What brady has spelled out here would enhance the 190f8s capability. And I for one would be happy with taking a "conservative" approach to these things. But even looking at it "conservatively" theres options that could be aloud for the f8.

However there are other things I'd rather see and we cant forget the guys running the show here, I'm sure, have a schedule of how and when they want to get things done.

[brady]

TY sir

[ra]

Here's another take, from 'Warplanes of the Third Reich' (bold text added by me):

'Basically, the Fw 190F-8 differed from its predecessor, the F-3, in having 13-mm. MG 131 machine guns replaceing the 7.9-mm. calibre MG 17s in the fuselage, improved bomb-release mechanism, and four ETC 50 racks beneath the wings as standard.  It was proposed to apply several  Umrust-Bausatze to the Fw 190F-8, although, in the event, few of these conversion sets were installed'.

later:

'The III/KG 200 subsequently operated in the West on both daylight and nocturnal sorties, but there is no evidence to indicate the operational use of BT weapons by the unit's Fw 190F-8s'.

'The Fw 190F-8 served as a test-bed in numerous experimental weapons evaluation programmes...

<later, same paragraph>

... and the Panzerschreck was used operationally on the Eastern Front in October 1944, but its poor ballistic characteristics lead to its replacement in December by the Panzerblitz.  
   The Panzerblitz 1 (Pb1) possessed twice the charge of the Panzerschreck and could be released some 220 yards from the target, or about twice the distance necessary to achieve adequate penetration with the Panzerschreck.  Eight Pb 1 rockets were carried beneath the wings of the Fw 190F-8 in two jettisonable wooden crates, but it was necessary to launch the missiles at speeds no higher than 305 m.p.h., rendering the aircraft rather vulnerable to groundfire during the target approach.  Thus the Pb 1 gave place to the Pb 2, a modified 55-mm. R4M air-to-air missile with a hollow-charge warhead and launched from a pair of underwing racks each carrying either six or seven rockets.'  

The next paragraph begins:

'Yet another anti-tank weapon evaluated by the Fw 190F-8 was the...'

The author doesn't seem to want to commit one way or the other, did these weapons see regular operational use?  I'm not sure, and I've never read an account of a pilot using any of these, nor an account of any ground unit being attacked with these.  The R4M, however, is widely know to have been used because the pilots who used them and the aircrews who survived them have written of them.

Here's my concern in a nutshell:  back in the stone-age days of early AH the 190A8 had a bug where you could load a 500Kg bomb and the climb performance was uneffected.  The LW drivers new about this bug for a long time and kept it to themselves.  Now LW drivers want weapons which may have less historical relevance than the cursed Chog, and so I am agnostic until I see a few pounds of this 'ton of evidence'.

BTW, here's a cool site which shows some damaged allied bombers that managed to make it back to base:
 http://free.prohosting.com/~kopper/acdamg.htm

Check out the B-17 with a hole in it from a R4M.    


ra

[ 10-29-2001: Message edited by: ra ]

[Zigrat]

i hated when they fixed that bug

[brady]

I have always backed the historical aproach to aircraft and weapon inclushion in AH, my sources indacate as do yours ra that these Panzerblitz rocket systems were indead used in action, all of theam, the best choice being the 55mm PB 2. What is in dispute is just how many were used in action, and wheater or not they were used in numbers sufficent to warent inclushion, just what are those numbers? What is the magic deciding number for inclushion? Do those differ for each country?, is it a percentage of the totaly output for a country, would they say be heigher for the US because they made more stuff than say Italy?

[Raubvogel]

Originally posted by ra:
[QB]
... and the Panzerschreck was used operationally on the Eastern Front in October 1944, but its poor ballistic characteristics lead to its replacement in December by the Panzerblitz.  
   The Panzerblitz 1 (Pb1) possessed twice the charge of the Panzerschreck and could be released some 220 yards from the target, or about twice the distance necessary to achieve adequate penetration with the Panzerschreck.  Eight Pb 1 rockets were carried beneath the wings of the Fw 190F-8 in two jettisonable wooden crates, but it was necessary to launch the missiles at speeds no higher than 305 m.p.h., rendering the aircraft rather vulnerable to groundfire during the target approach.  Thus the Pb 1 gave place to the Pb 2, a modified 55-mm. R4M air-to-air missile with a hollow-charge warhead and launched from a pair of underwing racks each carrying either six or seven rockets.'  

The next paragraph begins:

'Yet another anti-tank weapon evaluated by the Fw 190F-8 was the...'

I'm still looking for where it says the Pb2 was only evaluated. You conveniently add that excerpt "Yet another anti-tank weapon evaulated", but that has nothing to do with the Pb2. The Pb2 should be added. The R4M should be added. Same rockets, different warheads...kills 2 birds with 1 stone.

[Urchin]

He doesn't HAVE to say that the rockets were evaluated... the sentence "yet ANOTHER weapon evaluated" implies that something previous was a weapon that was evalutated.  Whether or not that is the rocket or some weapon that was not mentioned in the post is unclear.

[Urchin]

Besides which, if the Pb2 could only be fired 220 meters from the target, it would be useless.  Even the single .50 caliber on an M3 can shred a target that comes in at 300 mph with a flat trajectory FAR, FAR befor.comat target gets within 220 meters.

[Urchin]

A8 Rustsatze:
The following are 2 field conversion kits that were often fitted to the A8 series.

R-2 MK 108 cannon under each wing.
R-12 Mk 108 cannon in each outer wing.

 

Brady.. Enlighten me here.  Our 190A8 ALREADY has twin Mk-108 cannon in each other wing... would that mean that it is a field modification that has already been added to the game?  Obviously we do not have the A8/R8 version with extra armor (or if we do I'd REALLY love to see how the standard one faired against buffs).  Or does that mean that some 190a8's came "standard" with 2x20mm and 2x30mm, and could add another pair of 30mm cannon for a total of 4x30mm cannon?  

Even if 190's were modified in real life to carry twin 30mm cannon under the wing while already packing twin 20mm and twin 30mm in the wings, HT would never put that modification in the game.  It would probably be to hard to program.

[brady]

It has the MK 103, not the Mk 108.

 Each "R" pack put one MK 108 in either the outer 20mm wing position(replacing it) or put one under it whear the ETC 50 rack would be like on the F8 in a pod. it was as far as I know an either or situation, not both at once.

[ 10-29-2001: Message edited by: brady ]

[ra]

Brady:

I want historical loadouts too.  If no unit ever used a particular weapon as a regular means of getting their job done, then I don't think that weapon should be modelled.  If Pb2's were used by even one Jabo unit on a repeated basis, ie were found to be effective for the task at hand, then I'm all for HTC modelling them.  But no one who posts here seems to know for sure.  Everyone just wants another weapon.

The excerpt I posted from Green's book seems to say the the Panzerschrek was briefly tried and found to be impractical, the Pb 1 not much better, and the Pb 2...?  It's vague, maybe even Green wasn't sure if Pb 2s went beyond combat trials or not.

Raubvogel:

If you think I clipped things out of context go down to your local library and check out the book.  Or do some research of your own, not just 'gimme da weapon I saw in da picture'.

ra

[brady]

My source says that the RLM accepted them for use, they bought it, said it was ok, and it says they were used by anti arnor units (pluarl), but does not say which. and refers to the use of all three types operationaly.

[Urchin]

Originally posted by brady:
It has the MK 103, not the Mk 108.

 Each "R" pack put one MK 108 in either the outer 20mm wing position(replacing it) or put one under it whear the ETC 50 rack would be like on the F8 in a pod. it was as far as I know an either or situation, not both at once.

[ 10-29-2001: Message edited by: brady ]

Brady.  So what you are saying is this.  A standard 190A8 would have 4 20mm cannons in the wings.  An inside pair and an outside pair.  Now, there was the option to mount a pair of 30mm cannons, either replacing the outside pair OR leaving all 4 20mm cannons on and placing an additional pair of 30mm cannons underneath the wings (rather like the underwing 20mm gondolas that we have for the 109s).  Right?  Under no circumstances could 2x20mm (inside pair)+ 2x30mm (outside pair)+ 2x30mm (underwing gondolas) be mounted- HOWEVER, it was possible to mount 2x20mm (inside)+2x20mm(outside)+2x30mm (underwing gondolas)?

I think it'd be neat to be able to mount more cannons on the 190A8.. but I'm not sure how practical it would be.  The plane already handles like a Dog, all you could do would be HO with the extra cannons.

[brady]

The MK 108 is a comparatavly light weapon, much more so than the MK 103.The  MK 108 in the outboard wing position would replace the outboard 20mm. The MK 108, for the underwing mount would be instead of the MK 103. The advantage of the MK 108 in the place of the outboard 20mm is that it adds some serious punch withought adding a ton of weight normaly assoicated with the MK 103, also it is in the wing more streamlined than the pod MK 108 and certainly more than the MK 103.It is not a case of more cannos but a case of diferent one's.