190 pilots before/after the 190 update

[MK-84]

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.

This may be the best argument I've ever seen for the "weight" of the 190A8.

Unlike literally every other post, this makes sense (as opposed to the endless crying for an "uber plane")  <--which is really what most of you want isnt it?

So lets uh..see..that would scientifically make it a theory... given the damage taken in an attack, which although anecdotal does appear to hold up VS other 190 models in terms of dmg taken during an attack.

So I guess that would establish a Hypothesis.  Next is to formulate a theory.  In which case I would suggest going offline and slamming .50's into an A5 VS an A8 one by one and recording the results.  Obviously using ranges in which the armor of an A8 "should/could" prevent penetration.

I do not volunteer for this

[morfiend]

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...

  Well,not sure where to start with this comment but I'll just say that I wasnt trying to be cool!  I judt dont like misimformation being spread about,Mk103 armed 190's ya right.

   This isnt the first time this has come up and yes there's plenty of imfo out there about it.They were tested and found unsastisfactory because of excess weight and excessive yaw because the guns were not syncronized.

  My motivation for the post was simple to stop people from posting things that arent true,much like the often quoted spit 16 seeing little to no use!


   Feel free to imform me where I went wrong with this post!



   

[Ruah]

thank goodness the A5 is good - but I would love to get an improved A8. 

[33Vortex]

Surely the 190 family has been neglected since they were given the new updated models, but there are other planes who've been neglected for longer so we're not so bad off. The tailwheel bug has remained for 6 years now or so, it's only visual but yeah I'm making films so it does make a difference. The weight of the A-8 has likewise been neglected for at least as long, the added armor would be nice to have since we already pay for it in terms of weight. To fly without it would make the A-8 come alive somewhat, but it would certainly not be a monster ride any more than it already is.

Regarding the Mk103, the Ta152B and C were to be fitted with it in the engine mount, the B was also planned to have Mk103s in the wingroots as well but it never materialized because of the deteriorating situation for german industry.




The Ta152C, there is info circulating (origins of a pilot) that one example also equipped with a gyro-stabilized EZ 42 sight made it to JG11 from Rechlin. The type could be easily confused with a 190D unless technical documentation was available to prove otherwise. The only visible difference is a 0.5 m wider wingspan, apart from the different engine installation.




The Ta152E and B versions, note the B armament. Also note the manufacturing date of the E, which indicate that the type may have seen service. The E being based on the C type had a 0.5 m wider wingspan than the FW190 and also the same engine as the D model (actually a 213E instead of a 213A but who would be able to tell?) which would make it easily taken for a FW190D. No doubt in aerial combat it would be identified as a 'long-nosed 190' by the allies. Even experts would have difficulty distinguishing between the two types in the field without access to technical documentation.

Noteworthy is also the fact that the A/B types finished prototype testing as early as Oct '43 and proposed as a replacement to the aging Bf110 fleet as zerstörers. Manufacturing of the A/B could have started in first quarter '44. RLM however saw no reason to start Ta152 A/B production since the Bf110s were still at the time fairly successful so this never happened. Later in '44 the 190D was devised as a emergency stop-gap measure (converted A-frames) until Ta152 production was started.




Here is the family tree of late production models.

If a gruppe was equipped with the C and/or E types, the similarities with the 190D would have made them easily misidentified and destructed without anyone ever finding out. There are (were, since most if not all by now are dead) german factory workers who testify that these were in production. No material evidence can be produced however which means simply, we don't know, all evidence has been destroyed.



Ta152C



Btw... wtf is up with mediafire  

Direct d/l links of the images:
152C
152C Waffen & Behälteranlage
152 E-B
FW prod types

[Krusty]

This may be the best argument I've ever seen for the "weight" of the 190A8.

...

So lets uh..see..that would scientifically make it a theory... given the damage taken in an attack, which although anecdotal does appear to hold up VS other 190 models in terms of dmg taken during an attack.

So I guess that would establish a Hypothesis.  Next is to formulate a theory.  In which case I would suggest going offline and slamming .50's into an A5 VS an A8 one by one and recording the results.  Obviously using ranges in which the armor of an A8 "should/could" prevent penetration.

Actually, no need to do that. You can find out exactly what kind of armor was put on the r8 model. You can see some similar placement on the 190F8, which was heavily armored against ground fire when used in the jabo role. There was especially an armored oil ring around the cowling. On the Fw190F8 in game, you can almost NEVER lose oil. You'll get shot to pieces, lose a wing, a tail, or even the pilot, and find yourself back in the tower before you notice certain types of damage.

On the A8 (in-game) you lose oil at the drop of a hat. Therefore you know for a fact it doesn't have the extra armor added.

[Babalonian]

Sincerely sorry to all for my last batch of replys, had a lack of food and sleep yesterday, most the tone was extremely uncalled for. 


The A-8 armor being modeled or not in-game though is mostly up to speculation on our end, as it is not a unique problem exclusive to just the A-8.  P-47s is one allied comparison i can think of off the top of my head.  They were notoriously tough and durable in the engine and in providing the pilot protection - but lets start making comparisons to the way they are in AH, and you could say they lack their armor modeling to some degree too as it is an issue raised sometimes. 

I do agree though with you Krusty for the most part in comparison to the F-8, the A-8 seems to have the wing armor reinforcments, no cowling armor additions, and questionable if the visualy modeled armored glass windscreen is physicaly modeled adequatley.

[Krusty]

I don't even think it has the wing armor, which was mostly armor plating around the ammo boxes and guns to prevent them being knocked out. I've lost outboard guns on the A8 too many times to count. Actual structural strength seems comparable to the A-5 (which is unarmored) and I think it's a 100% sure bet the in-game model does NOT have the additional armor built in.


Yet it is still some 500lbs heavier than the standard A8 model, which it is supposed to represent. It's not the first time HTC has mix-matched models when creating planes, but IMO it's the worst possible mix-matching choice for the A8 performance vs A8 variant.


You can see where the armor is supposed to be added here (possibly more than this?)



edit: fixed links


And that's just the additional armor. As compared to the 190A5 there's no noticable improvement in survivability, when in fact an entire formation of these planes could fly up a bomber stream's dead 6 and maybe only lose 1 plane out of 8 after a successful attack run.

Try THAT in aces high!

[Zeagle]

Oops, just confused A-8 with F-8. Nothing to see here.