Armament Options, Which and Why Pyro ?

[Vermillion]

I am really confused here about which planes get which armament options and why? Maybe someone else can enlighten me, or Pyro will answer.

One thing I really love about this game is the ability to configure your own loadouts, and most particularly since I am a fighter dweeb, pick which guns you want for the job.

But why do some planes get the option of different loadouts and others don't??

Let me explain.

For the Spitfire variants, the British didn't change the aircraft designation (but did have a different "wing" designation) and some had x2 20mm and x4 .303's, and others had x2 20mm and x2 .50's. We get both options in the game.

The American F4U actually added a different designation (-1c and -1d) for what amount to only an armament change, and we had to wait for each variant. But conversely the P-51 had the standard armament of 6 guns, but some units did a field modification to 4 guns and we get both options.

The Germans planes seem to come out really good in this area (rejoice Luftwobbles!!   ).  Not only do they get Rustsatze (Field Conversion Kits) they get  Factory Conversion Kits (Umrust-Bausatze designated with a "U") that are similar to the Rustsatze, but it just means they were added at the factory. For instance the Bf109G10 with the added 20mm gun pods is the Bf109G10/R6.  The Fw190A8 with the x2 30mm cannons is the Fw190A8/R8. If you then add the Wgr21cm rockets, it becomes the Fw190A8/R6/R8.

So now we come down to the latest aircraft release.

The Yak-9U had a standard armament of x2 12.7mm MG's and a single 20mm cannon, which is the only armament option in Aces High. However some Yak-9U's were armed differently. In these aircraft the x2 12.7MG's were replaced with x2 20mm B-20 cannons, and the single 20mm cannon could be replaced with a different 20mm cannon, a 23mm NS23 cannon, a 37mm NS37 cannon, or even a 45mm NS45 cannon.

This plane was known as the Yak-9UT.

There were appreciable number of these aircraft built (almost 300 out of around 3,000), and they participated very successfully in the war.

So why didn't we get these armament options on this aircraft??

How is a Yak-9UT any different to a Yak-9U, than a Bf109G10/R6 different to a BF109G10? Or how is it any different than the Fw190A8/R6/R8, or the field conversion of a P-51 ?? They are all subvariants of the main variant of the aircraft in the game, ie different armament options.

And don't throw out the predictabel "playbalance" arguement (or at least expect me to buy it   ). If a Bf109G10/R6 (x3 20mm) isn't unbalancing, then a x3 20mm Yak-9U isn't unbalancing.

If we have a consistent policy (ie a fair policy) on gun options from country to country, then I personally think the Yak should get its cannon options.

I would be really interested to know what the "policy" actually is, and how it works from aircraft to aircraft, since it doesn't seem very consistent or fair.

PS: Before you jump in to disagree or flame me, think about what this means to future aircraft additions (ie your own personal favorite). For instance is the F6F HellCat going to get its x2 20mm + x4 .50's option, in addition to the standard x6 .50's ??

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"

[juzz]

If it had good guns, people might actually fly the Yak-9U!  

[milnko]

 

Originally posted by juzz:
If it had good guns, people might actually fly the Yak-9U!  

I just have a hard time taking any plane named after a hairy,smelly, buffalo-type animal seriously.

 
The Great Milenko

You can kill me can't ya?

------------------
<< MILENKO >>
<===THE ASSASSINS===>Webpage

[Nashwan]

You're wrong about the Spitfires getting all their armament options. Most Spit Vs, and almost all IXs and later had the C type wing, which also allowed 4 20mm. We don't get that option in AH.

[Pongo]

In the case of the Yak. I am sure once Pyro gets all those cannons ironed out and tested and added to the game they will be available

I think that with the Hisapanos were they are now, we are ready for a 4 cannon spit. As long as the reason that they were not usually used is represented in the flight model. On a plane that weights as little as a spit Vc it should really rock the world to fire all 4...


An F6f with hispanos..sounds cool.

[juzz]

The reason they dumped the 4 cannon wing on the Spitfire was because it was too heavy.

[Karnak]

Not that anyone would actually use it, but the MkV also had the "a" wing of 8 .303s as a possibilty.  Thank "Tin Legs" Bader for that one.

Here is a interesting bit of info from the book "Fighters of World War II":

   

These two aircraft (DP845 and DP851) had the Supermarine designation Type 337 and much in common with the Spitfire Mk III, though the mark number assigned was IV.  By early 1941, however, the same number had been assigned to the Spitfire PR.Mk IV photo-reconnaissance production version, so DP845, the only one to fly at that time, was restyled Spitfire Mk XX.  It flew in 1941, with a Griffon IIB and a four-bladed propeller.  The planned armament was six Hispano cannon, and this armament was mocked up on DP845.  It was hoped to go into production with Griffon Spitfires at once, all with mark numbers of XX or higher, and 750 Spitfire Mk XXs were ordered from the Castle Bromwich factory on 23 August 1941, but somebody in the Ministry of Aircraft Production changed the mark number to the regular Merlin-engined Spitfire Mks VB and VC for these aircraft, whose serials were in the range ER206-ER369.

Imagine having gotten a Griffon Spitfire in 1942 with six 20mm Hispano cannons.  That would've give the Fw190A a bit more of a run for its money than from the Mk V.

And no Juzz, they didn't dump the 4 cannon because of weight.  They dumped it because of reliability and because it wasn't needed.  2 20mm cannon are quite capable of downing a fighter.  If they'd still been dealing with large numbers of bomber, they'd have kept the 4 20mm loadout.  Spitfires ended their combat career with 4 20mm cannon.  The last strike flown by Spitfires, by the RAF happen on January 1, 1951 when No. 60 Squadron flew strikes against bandit camps.  The PR.Mk 19 went on until April 1, 1954.  And that was the last of the Spitfire in the RAF.

Sisu
-Karnak

[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 06-25-2000).]

[Pongo]

There was some effect on the performance of the aircraft Karnak. They removed them from the Vcs that arrived in Malta with them, and there were lots of bombers to deal with at Malta.

[Nashwan]

I doubt that replacing 4 MGs with 2 cannon in the wings would have as detremental an effect on the SPit as hanging 2 20mm under the wings of the 109.
The Spit only faced lightly armed German and Italian bombers. There was no real need for 4 20mm. In AH Spits face B17s and B26s. 4 20mm would be a nice option to have. Even if it wasn't used much on the Spit, it was available on almost all of them. That little fairing next to the cannon isn't there for decoration you know.

[juzz]

I have previously pasted a quote on this BBS from a Malta Spitfire pilot - the reasons he stated for reducing the 4 HS to 2(no MG's added) in that case were:

1. Less guns per fighter to maintain and keep operating.
2. Shortage of 20mm ammo.
3. Performance boost - with all the desert gear the Mk VC(T) was much heavier.
4. 2 HS was lethal enough, even vs Ju 88.

When the Mk IX came about, the C wing was not to be used because they wanted to keep the weight of the aircraft down, as it had been creeping up all through Mk V production. I doubt you will find any Mk IX were in service with a C wing.

[leonid]

I hear you Verm, but on the other hand I have to say I'm pretty happy with how well the present armament is proving for the Yak-9U.  This plane has so much performance & power in the vertical that it's almost ridiculous (and finally too!).  Most of my kills are in hard BnZ, or scissor maneuvers which means kills in the 100-200m range.  At that range anything will fall under its guns.  Even a P-47 can't withstand it.

Still, it'll be something if we can get those -9UT options    


------------------
   
leonid, Komandir
5 GIAP VVS-KA, Knights

"Our cause is just.  The enemy will be crushed.  Victory will be ours."

[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 06-25-2000).]

[Pyro]

I was very tempted to do a Yak-9T,(not UT) and we yet still, but for now it was decided to hold off.  If we get a fighter with a large-bore, high-velocity, AT gun, why ever bother with stuff like the Il-2, Hurri IID, Ju-87G, or HS-129?  Of course, that's a play balance thing that you don't want to hear about so let's just say that I'm biased against the VVS.



------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations

"I say old boy, why don't you shut up and die like a man?"

[juzz]

Uhm, a Yak can't carry 2 guns, loads of bombs and rockets like an Il-2 can...?

Now what about that 3x20mm option for the Yak-9U?  

[Vermillion]

Leonid, so far for me the Yak is a mystery. 3 Sorties and 3 deaths, but I will try and fly it more.

I am really disappointed over the whole "prototype vs. production" issue we have talked into the ground, but I could live with the current Yak FM, if I had some firepower too go with it.

My point is, we all know AH is basically "cannon birds". Especially if you want to intercept a Buff (Tried a B-26 last night with a Spitfire, and we both got shredded).

And I literally can't see the "philosophical or gameplay" difference between the Yak and its heavy gun options, and the other aircraft and their heavy gun options.

Hell, I would really love to try out the 23mm, or either of the big gun Yaks (37mm or 45mm). But I would be happy (and shut my mouth) if we at least had the x3 B-20 20mm option.

Fair is fair, and I can't see a x3 20mm option being "unbalancing" with all the heavy cannon birds already in the game.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"

[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 06-25-2000).]

[juzz]

Actually I still have a question re: production vs prototype. I'll start a thread for it.