Author Topic: the BF110G2  (Read 4392 times)

Offline Wilbus

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4472
the BF110G2
« Reply #45 on: March 15, 2002, 05:21:54 AM »
hey Karnak :)

Never heard anything about it being very fragile my self, always thought it was a pretty sturdy plane, most twins seem to be (P38 quickly comes to mind).

Do you have any more info? Would be interesting reading :)

Btw, recieved the money?
Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

Liberating Livestock since 1998, recently returned from a 5 year Sheep-care training camp.

Offline hazed-

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
      • http://combatarena.users.btopenworld.com
the BF110G2
« Reply #46 on: March 15, 2002, 08:27:00 AM »
ok while we are on the subject of unusual climb rates could we have some sort of confirmation/figures for the climb rate of fully loaded p38s and P47s.I have no idea or info on their performance with full ordinance amounting to around 3500 lb.

I want to take this oppertunity to ask as any other time I'll be called handsomehunked names and the thread will be hijacked by those types.

ALso I would like to know why i have figures of 5500lb for b26s and we have 4000lb.B17s also have a listing of a maximum load of 17,500lb!! Is this correct? and if so why are b17s limited to 6000lb?

another thing is the armour of a 190f8.I have flown it many times and it just doesnt seem any different to any other 190.Yet every book I have give it special mention for its extra armour and its speciality of ground attack(along with specialised 190a8 with extra armour for the bombers which im NOT talking about :D)

The other, and last thing is the range in real life warfare for shots with the 75mm gun on a panzer IVH.

was it regularly able to shoot targets at 3500 yards as our AH one does? Wasnt the average less than a 1000 yards(vague memory! :))? Yesterday I was killed at over this range.first hit destroyed my turret! This is often the strongest/thickest armour unless the shell came in vertically and hit the thin top armour.
Even so for gameplay reasons, couldnt we make it so we can at LEAST see each other clearly before the killing starts?

Offline MANDOBLE

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1849
      • http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s
the BF110G2
« Reply #47 on: March 15, 2002, 08:54:07 AM »
Very good point Darkglam.
In the other hand, the 110s were pigs compared with Spits. Well, actually anything in the game is a pig compared with Spits. But this plane was a grear turner compared specially with any late war plane.

As a side note, it is funny to see how the community reacts to whines about planes:

Do you attack a LW design with no data at all? You are a hero.
Do you try to improve a LW design with some data? You are a devil.

hehe I imagine a thread with an initial post like:
"Dora should be much faster because I think it should be so"

Or

"P51 should be much slower because I think it should be so"

Offline Wilbus

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4472
the BF110G2
« Reply #48 on: March 15, 2002, 09:32:23 AM »
Hehehehe Mando, very true ;)

Hazed, the B17 was able to carry 17,500 pounds (or something like that) for short distance trips with little fuel in the plane. However, that would most likely unbalance the arena since a B17 now can get to 20-25k, drop it's eggs and rtb, all on 25% fuel. Now, Imagine this doing the same but with 17,000 lbs of eggs, nobody would fly lanc any more. Maybe perk loadout? Or if buff range is somehow shortened down.
Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

Liberating Livestock since 1998, recently returned from a 5 year Sheep-care training camp.

Offline SKurj

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3630
the BF110G2
« Reply #49 on: March 15, 2002, 09:44:22 AM »
I turn fought 2 p51's on the deck in the 110, they both had the initial advantage, they both lost.

However, i was ignorantly very light on fuel.. (i ditched)


SKurj

Offline Staga

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5334
      • http://www.nohomersclub.com/
the BF110G2
« Reply #50 on: March 15, 2002, 10:25:30 AM »
Hazed 75mm L43 or L48 could penetrate homogenous armour:
PzGr39: Range 2000m, with angle 0degr penetr.98mm, angle 30 degr. penetr.73mm
PzGr40: Range 2500m, penetr. 0degree angle 83mm and 30 degree angle 53mm
PzGr40: From 1000m penetr.@0degr133mm and @30degr. 96mm.

PzIV max.armour was usually 50mm in later variants; sometimes 80mm in front of hull with using additional armour plates.

Source: "Small Arms, Artillery and Special Weapons of the Third Reich" by Gander & Chamberlain, 1978

btw 75mm PaK41 with APCNR (Armour Piercing, Composite, Non-Rigid) ammunition could penetrate 171mm from 2000m in a 30degr.angle.

Offline DmdBT

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 331
      • http://www.damned.org
the BF110G2
« Reply #51 on: March 15, 2002, 10:44:20 AM »
I remember hearing something somewhere that someone once said about the PILOT playing a large part in the air to air factor and not necessarily the quality of the aircraft he/she may be flying.

Luck also is a factor

Lonz

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23046
the BF110G2
« Reply #52 on: March 15, 2002, 01:01:16 PM »
The 110s turn rate/radius doesn't surprise me.  Its roll rate seems a bit high, I don't see Spit Is or 109Es out rolling it.

The climb rate is the thing that I'm really skeptical of.

The 110G-4 had a climb of 2,170-2,300 fpm.  2 MG151/20s + ammo shouldn't take that much off the climb rate, especially when you consider that the weight of the rear gunner and his guns has been removed to make room for the 2 MG151/20s and their ammo.

Thats a net weight gain of what?  100lbs?  200lbs at the outside.

If adding 100-200lbs causes the Bf110G to lose 500-630ft per minutte of climb rate, what does adding 2 500kg bombs do?  It should drop it to near nothing I would think.

No, I believe that the Bf110G-2 climbs significantly faster than it should.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Red Tail 444

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2497
      • http://www.redtail.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: the BF110G2
« Reply #53 on: March 15, 2002, 01:53:09 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Widewing





"Meat on the table" Robert Johnson
"Hopelessly out-classed" Jim Goodson
"Easy kills, virtually defenseless" Bud Mahurin

One needs only look at the success of the Bf 110 in combat in the ETO (circa 1943 and beyond) to understand that these aircraft were slaughtered by the day fighters, wherever they were encountered.

I defy anyone to present some evidence that the Bf 110 could dogfight anywhere near as well as the current AH modeled example does. When faced with single-engine day fighters, 110s were utterly annilated. As it stands now, the 110G has a better record than the 190A-8, 190F-8, F6F and P-38. All of these aircraft should (in the real world) easily defeat the 110G, with anyone with anyone less than the Lord Jesus at the Messerschmitt's controls. Yet, in the same arena, the 110 seems to on its way to generating a better combat record than the above. The logical conclusion must be that the 110 is over-modeled. Indeed, having flown other sim's 110s, AH's version is far more capable. If there were no other reason than that, it would be worth looking at.


That's one of the best posts I have read. I'm a newbie, so I have nothing to offer other than thanks for getting the new guys like me up to speed on planes, info sharing, and the like. It does seem odd, however, that the 110 seems to be relatively uber when compared to how it actually fared in the war. I had a hell of a time with a mossie the other night, while I was in an f6.

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute. Widewing, do you think the skill of the pilot has something to do with the success rate overall of the 110 in AH so far? or, does their level of success exceed the perceived abilities of the pilot?

That is all

Gainsie

Offline SKurj

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3630
the BF110G2
« Reply #54 on: March 15, 2002, 02:49:21 PM »
tactics in the MA in noway reflect tactics used in ww2...


Anyways check the K/D of thre 110...

SKurj

Offline -ammo-

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5124
the BF110G2
« Reply #55 on: March 15, 2002, 02:50:24 PM »
OK di a very small amount of snooping last evening.

the 110 G2 data source that Flakbait quoted, and a book I own "combat AC of WW2" has close to the same general numbers. This comes no-where close to proving that the 110G is overmodeled but here it is for the sake of discussion.

the BF110-G-
    2 each 1,475 HP DB605B engines, 2950 HP
    empty weight (no fuel, ammo) 9,920 lb's
    loaded weight 15,430
    wing area, 413 sq ft
    top speed 349 MPH @ 23k
    time to climb to 18,045 ft, 8 minutes (I assume clean)


The P-47D25
    1 P&W 2800, 2430 HP on wep
    empty weight, 9,980 lbs
    loaded weight, 12,990 lbs
    wing area, 322 sq ft
    top speed 426 MPH @ 25k
    time to climb to 18K, 8 minutes clean


P47 data came from "Thunderbolt, From Severski to Victory" by Warren M. Bodie

Gonna do some AH tests next to compare it. Also will keep looking for more data as time (and priorities) permits.
Commanding Officer, 56 Fighter Group
Retired USAF - 1988 - 2011

Offline Wilbus

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4472
the BF110G2
« Reply #56 on: March 15, 2002, 02:51:00 PM »
109 E should probarly roll a bit better, Spit 1 too maybe. 110 roll seems good.

Karnak, think you're wrong about the G2 though.

To compare it with a G4 is a pretty bad thing, the reason the G4 climbs that much worse isn't the extra 400 lbs of Mk108 + ammo, it's the radar  + radar antenas.
Since it was a night fighter, it allso used flame dampers, and those slowed it down alot too.
By judging from all this, the G2 should have the performance it has when compard to the G4.

The G4 was a night fighter, it had radar which gave it much more wieght, but most important, it had antenas and flame dampers which caused high drag and slowed down everything with the plane.

So all together, although I don't have any data, I am guessing the G4 is about 1000 lbs heavier + the high drag antenas.

Widewing, yes, the 110 got slaughtered against single engine fighters. However, although a MUCH better fighter then the 110, the P38 too, didn't do well VS Luftwaffe, and Galland him self said, when there were P38's in the air, Luftwaffe were had an easy day ahead of them.

No twin engined fighter should be able to hold its own against single engine ones, only one that might have been able, more or less would almost certainly been able to do it, was the DO335. (not counting twin engine jets).

And yet, the P38 is about the most leathal fighter in the game with superb low speed handeling, turn rate, climb rate and a good roll rate.

Mosquito too, is truely great, turns exelent and fast and accelerates VERY well.

Real life tactics etc, has been proven "wrong" in AH numerous times, B26's and B17's dogfighting, making loops and rolls, main LW tactic of HO on buffs work as bad as going in from the 6 in AH.
List could go on and on...


 
The radar is the difference.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2002, 03:14:18 PM by Wilbus »
Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

Liberating Livestock since 1998, recently returned from a 5 year Sheep-care training camp.

Offline Wilbus

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4472
the BF110G2
« Reply #57 on: March 15, 2002, 03:07:05 PM »
Ammo, that G version seems to be a G4, not sure though, do you have the exact version?
Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

Liberating Livestock since 1998, recently returned from a 5 year Sheep-care training camp.

Offline Red Tail 444

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2497
      • http://www.redtail.org
the BF110G2
« Reply #58 on: March 15, 2002, 03:53:28 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by SKurj
tactics in the MA in noway reflect tactics used in ww2...


Anyways check the K/D of thre 110...

SKurj


Speaking of which, just how many kills DID you tally last night on that run you had in the CV? :)

I lost count at...120?

Offline Hristo

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1150
the BF110G2
« Reply #59 on: March 15, 2002, 08:34:41 PM »
Where's Rude ?