190 pilots before/after the 190 update

[Brooke]

190A-5's did fine in the recent "Enemy Coast Ahead" scenario.  Most of the RAF fighters were Spit 9's, with a smaller number of Typhoons and one squadron of Spit 5's.  They were very good planes in that environment.

[Tank-Ace]

A 190 squadron comprised of pilots that really knew the plane would do well. Probably they would tear it up in the MA's if there were even 4-5 of them together in the midst of a horde. 190 is a worldbeater many on many.

1) great acceleration and climb, it can quickly rebuild lost E in either the form of speed or altitude

2) best roll rate in the game, it can quickly change targets, and realign itself during high AoA attacks.

3) high speed compared to contemporaries (or at least average, in the case of the A8), good acceleration in a dive, and good high-speed handling allow it to disengage at will.

[Karnak]

I haven't used the Fw190s in a long time, but I spent a tour using the Fw190A-5 and a tour using the Fw190D-9 as my primary ride.  I liked the Fw190A-5 quite a lot and found it to be quite a handy fighter, even without using group tactics.  The Fw190D-9 I like less.  It is very fast but that is about all it has going for it compared to the Fw190A-5.

[Zeagle]

A 190 squadron comprised of pilots that really knew the plane would do well. Probably they would tear it up in the MA's if there were even 4-5 of them together in the midst of a horde. 190 is a worldbeater many on many.

1) great acceleration and climb, it can quickly rebuild lost E in either the form of speed or altitude

2) best roll rate in the game, it can quickly change targets, and realign itself during high AoA attacks.

3) high speed compared to contemporaries (or at least average, in the case of the A8), good acceleration in a dive, and good high-speed handling allow it to disengage at will.

 

[Babalonian]

dude, the Dora handles worse in all respects if I remember. Only advantage you get is the increased engine power and associated benefits.

The Dora does handle a little less better than an A-model, but not significantly or radically (at least in theory, and one that is a bit on the tricky side to test in AH since our A-8 is a production R8-block, and even taking the light gun package she's still modeled on the beefy and hefty side with the 30mm windscreen and 5mm steel plate cockpit armor reinforcements).  In essence the D-9 is simply a V-12 liquid-cooled version of the A-9/A-8 (the lighter fighter-intercept variants - not the heavier bomber-intercept or fighter-jabo varients - which all of our 190s except for the A-5 and D-9 and 152 are...) 

(Actually an A-5 by definition is a series of jabo-minded modifications made to the A-4 frame.  It offset it's engine placement forward allowing for a greater ordnance laden capacity, this made is less maneuverable in air to air but at the same time also allowed for a little better cooling in A-5s under the cowl than an A-4.  One day I hope, maybe HTC will add a lightened up fighter-inteceptor of the A-8/A-9 and some heavier jabo and bomber variants of the others to complete the set and give people a better appreciation the for the vast variety and limitless capabilities of the entire series.  There is almost no limit to how many variants can be potentially added, but more variety than is represented now I think is more desireable by other players than just myself.)

And its not like we've ever been deprived of anything with the great and heavily armed and protected bomber-interceptor that is the 190-A8-R8, but it simpley is what it is and isn't what it isn't (and damn good or bad at it).  The A-8s especially tended to come from the factory with a bunch of kits and packages already installed (and that many pilots and and outfits found unnecessary) - if they weren't needed for a particular units individual operations, then they were often and hastily removed and discarded in the field without much standardising or meticulous documentation.

Edit - spellchecker is my friend.

[Babalonian]

A 190 squadron comprised of pilots that really knew the plane would do well. Probably they would tear it up in the MA's if there were even 4-5 of them together in the midst of a horde. 190 is a worldbeater many on many.

1) great acceleration and climb, it can quickly rebuild lost E in either the form of speed or altitude

2) best roll rate in the game, it can quickly change targets, and realign itself during high AoA attacks.

3) high speed compared to contemporaries (or at least average, in the case of the A8), good acceleration in a dive, and good high-speed handling allow it to disengage at will.

Without too much weight strapped on the agile airframes (and with enough airflow under the cowling), even the early BMW radials were adequatley beefy enough to make their pilots quite happy against most opponents.  Think of the Brewster buffalo, the heavier version that the US Navy knew will likely never see the light of day in this game, however it's more agile and lighter foreign counterpart is capable of flying circles around spitfires all day.  And this is the only bitterness I have in regards to the current 190-A8 lineup - how come the Fins got to let their ground crews at their Buffalos with the torches and wrenches before letting HTCs see them (and now they have their super fun dogfighting scrapper) but the Krauts couldn't beforehand with the (imo more-) infamous (and sole represented late-A model) 190-A8?

[Tank-Ace]

I think you've misunderstood my intentions with these posts. I'm not in any way criticizing the 190's we have in game, or talking about real life. I'm simply making comparisons between in-game models we have right now.


And I would also like to see a lightened up 190A8. I would also enjoy seeing the more agile A4 eventually, giving us a 190 tailored more towards the air superiority role, rather than the interceptor or JABO role.

[Babalonian]

Understood, I dropped the banner of criticizing for them too a while ago (once I chewed through the fat in my head and saw that the A-8 we have isn't too heavy, HTCs just modeled the heaviest high-alt-intercept bomber-destroyer A-varient ever produced into the game).  Since then, I've been "simpley" asking (see: cheerleading) and seeking an expansion and (IMO much needed) added definition to the 190 representation in-game since.  In part because the differences and gaps currently in the lineup that you're comparing are so drastic (and imo unfairly balanced if you're looking for a competitive fighter vs fighter bmw-radial-powered late-ware 190).

For a while now I've been trying to understand the entire series better as a whole, so that I can hopefuly soon present more robust lineup than what we have without an equaly robust workload required to impliment (ya know, if we could only add two, or add two and adjust an existing type of proposal).  I mean, I suppose we could go all out, but it might be arguabley selfish to ask for more 190 variants than seem reasonable (and the reality is most this game is played in the LWA - so while an A-3/4 would be the 190-pilot's equivalent to the Finish Brewster (and damn fun), it wouldn't be a lightened A-8/9 equivalent. 

Also under the "needed" list (and not want) is more F-models, the jabo specializing 190s.  A D-11 or 13 would be under highley desireable in the "want" category, but considering though that late-war IS the name of the game here (and K4s are the most frequent 109), I think it would be a "fun money maker", but that might just be me, lol.

[Tank-Ace]

I would have to agree with you. And as to the F variants, from what I can tell, we only need to change the loadout and weights to let us get a number of different aircraft. Strafers armed with Mk 103 30mm's for killing tanks, different bomber variants.

Hell, if we could take the tail section of the Ta-152 and put it on the 190F8 frame (I think so anyway, at least as I understand it), we would have a variant able to carry torpedos as well.

[morfiend]

I would have to agree with you. And as to the F variants, from what I can tell, we only need to change the loadout and weights to let us get a number of different aircraft. Strafers armed with Mk 103 30mm's for killing tanks, different bomber variants.

Hell, if we could take the tail section of the Ta-152 and put it on the 190F8 frame (I think so anyway, at least as I understand it), we would have a variant able to carry torpedos as well.

  Can you please supply references on the Mk103 equipped 190's?  Yes I know they did tests but I always thought they were found unsatisfactory and never fielded.

    I know they used twin 20 mm waffen packs but never heard of Mk103's being used.



   

[Tank-Ace]

I've been having to struggle through some German, but from what I understood, it was field tested and used in limited service, but then later found to be unsatisfactory and withdrawn from service/had testing terminated.

You may be right though, my German is anything but perfect, and it does sound like the story I've heard from other sources.

[Krusty]

Tank: The Mk103 wasn't used operationally. It was tested and found wholly unsuited for combat use due to weight and massive non-symmetrical recoil pushing the plane about (or some such).

Babalon you're wrong on a few points here. The A4s and earlier models caried the exact same ETC rack and had the same under belly weapons options. The move was NOT to change the role of the aircraft nor to allow more jabo loadouts. This was to allieviate major heating problems with the rear cylinders in the engine. It did not change manuverability either. The A-5 was NOT a jabo-minded variant of the airframe. No more than the 109E-4 was.

Further, the A-8 we have *IS* overweight, because it is modeled with the massive armored weight of the r8 Sturmbock model, but NOT with the actual armor! It has a glass chin, it takes a round anywhere near the center and you get a pilot wound, it can't make any attack on bombers without losing oil on the first ping. The problem is they modeled the wrong WEIGHT for the model we have in-game. It wouldn't be so bad if they gave us the heavily armored version, but that's not what we have. Ideally it would be nice to have both, but generally speaking the non-loaded-down was more representative and more "normal" a variant to model.

[33Vortex]

I don't see what the OP is all about. I fly the 190s and Ta152 all the time and have found no difference. Perhaps it's because I rarely put myself in a situation to have to rely on the weak aspects of the aircraft in a fight, because it will get you killed with almost no exception. Most times I die it's because of my own stupidity, when in hindsight looking back at chain of events and decisions made. This can hardly be attributed to the aircraft handling poorly. One has to take that into account when deciding what to do. So I would argue, look at your own shortcomings instead of the aircraft.

Essentially when you choose a ride you have selected performance attributes which are absolute once selected. You have better stay on the strong side of these performance figures or you'll be relying solely on the poor performance and/or mercy of others.

Sometimes you need to step back some to get your perspective right. But oh well, we all know how some in the community like to rub others noses in the dirt for a laugh.

[Babalonian]

  Can you please supply references on the Mk103 equipped 190's?  Yes I know they did tests but I always thought they were found unsatisfactory and never fielded.

    I know they used twin 20 mm waffen packs but never heard of Mk103's being used.



   

Refine "supply references"?  You yourself just refered to them and complied with your own request: no 190 was fielded with a Mk103 motorkanon.  Ta-152s on the other hand... but those aren't Mk103 equiped 190s, they're Mk108 equiped 152s.  Sorry if my reaction sounds a bit abrasive, I highley suspect you, like many other who try to be cool in these threads, are simpley trying to add more piss to the cherios.  This information, in particular (and uniquely for Fock Wulfs), is available and already out there on the internet and in these boards.  The casual idea you have that these references even readily and easily exist for our free access and upon demand is also up for suspect and a questionable source of addtiional frustration in regards to this subject.

Alrighty...

In regards specificaly to the Mk103 motorkanon, I have come across a few references that state it was tested and trialed (coincidentley, other references point out that this was during the time period that the Mk103/108 was still being refined (pre full-production) itself).  As I understand, during the development/trial phase, it wasn't refined and was having all sorts of problems, some with the gun and some with the ammo.  (At this time I speculate, 190 test pilots had extensive experience (and a highley favorable opinion) with the two-to-four 20mm-armed A (and early D) models produced up to that time, so the not-up-to-snuff Mk103 was looked down upon.)  The option was always there for the 20mm motorkanon, and in other testing being performed around the same time, great success was happening in the 190 hangar by throwing on 20mms, external or internal, single or pairs at a time. 

On paper and in 1943 Germany, the 30mm looks more attractive than the 20mm, and that follows through in the decisions/priorities that the higher-ups made in regards to trying out the 30mm on future varients, but ultimatley using the ol' reliable 20mm as a fallback (the D-12 was the unsucessful 30mm motorkanon varient, the D-13 was the "successful" 20mm backup which ended up getting the go-ahead for production while the D-12 backburnered). 

The 30mm didn't start finding a place in the 190 hangar until the Mk108 came along and most the bugs got worked out, but by then and only in the form of outer-wing-mounted additions, the same as the dual-20mm waffen packs (which makes very convincing sense - if you look back into the days when they were first tossing 20mms into the outer wing positions of A-models, starting with the 20mm MG FF when the newer MG151/20 came around and fittingly for its superior ballistics and accuracy was given priority placement in the wingroots).  It was the very nature of that gun position on the 190 - accuracey and reliability be damned so long as it had added enough punch to do the job in one pass.  In this role, and with most the kinks ironed out, the Mk108 did much better and found some acceptance amongst 190 pilots. 

It was different with the motorkanon - from what I understand, the gun being that close to the center of mass (and engine) and the aiming shooter, they expected/demanded some mild degree of balistic accuracy and reliability (like that of the MG151) but at the very least something with enough reliability to not cripple its own aircraft (at this same time Mk103s were destroying their own engines in trials, and D-9s were ALREADY earning their frontline reputation for having glass radiators).

[Babalonian]

Tank: The Mk103 wasn't used operationally. It was tested and found wholly unsuited for combat use due to weight and massive non-symmetrical recoil pushing the plane about (or some such).

Babalon you're wrong on a few points here. The A4s and earlier models caried the exact same ETC rack and had the same under belly weapons options. The move was NOT to change the role of the aircraft nor to allow more jabo loadouts. This was to allieviate major heating problems with the rear cylinders in the engine. It did not change manuverability either. The A-5 was NOT a jabo-minded variant of the airframe. No more than the 109E-4 was.

Further, the A-8 we have *IS* overweight, because it is modeled with the massive armored weight of the r8 Sturmbock model, but NOT with the actual armor! It has a glass chin, it takes a round anywhere near the center and you get a pilot wound, it can't make any attack on bombers without losing oil on the first ping. The problem is they modeled the wrong WEIGHT for the model we have in-game. It wouldn't be so bad if they gave us the heavily armored version, but that's not what we have. Ideally it would be nice to have both, but generally speaking the non-loaded-down was more representative and more "normal" a variant to model.

Please reread my posts.  You're wrong in your references to me being wrong (but I'm not saying I'm not infaluable or that I can't be wrong), but on what points even I dont know because you've jumbled them all together.  I am thuroughly confused now.  Since when did I compare multiple/variable ETC racks?  I called the A-5 an exclusive jabo varient?  I could have sworn ETC racks were used by jabo pilots for ordnance as often as fighter/escort pilots for lugging additional fuel, let me look back for that typo and fix it.

The A-5 was beefed up for more total ferrying capacity, period.  How you've twisted it into me being wrong 5-ways from sunday Krusty, is simpley amazing.  What pisant moron pissed you off today or do you think I am?  They extended the original A-1 mounting brackets back on the A-2/3 ~15cm for additional cooling.  Then, from what I've read, on the A-5 it was done again a second time, primarily for additional cooling AND for the bonus offset CG.  We're now at a total of 2x~15cm mount extensions, for ~ a foot total.  This was done a second time, as previous cooling additions/improvements were no longer adequate under the increased weights and engine upgrades.  Next you'll be telling me all history that I know of is wrong, only your interpretation of it?  Please, school me, I always welcome it on 190s.

As for the armor/portection factors in AH itself: We can harp until we're both blue about it, HT knows we're both (and many others are) "unhappy" about it.   But you must take into account other comparisons to validate such a claim within the game.  We have no more or less a reason to complain about it than P-47 or F4U pilots always getting pilot wounded from low-rear shots.


Fine, you want honest (passionate fanatical) injun, HT's A-8 model is crap.  It's half-arsed, it's been for a while, lord knows how much longer he will be content with it that way, but likely a while.  Can I complain about his hard work until it's better?  Flippin straight.  Do I have the right to defame and insult his creative hard work?  Nobody does.  Despite any shortcomming anyone can find, is it still the best choice out there for simulated flying an A-8 today?  Duh.