Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: gatt on November 27, 2005, 09:30:08 AM
-
Here is another source:
Flying Guns World War II, by A.G.Williams and E.Gustin, Airlife 2003. Pag.269. Bf109K-4: optional two MG151-20 cannon in wings with 100rpg.
From previous post:
Bf 109 G/K, Field Conversion Kits (Rustsatze), by Harald Voght, Schiffer Publishing 1988. Pag.55. Bf109K-4. Rustsatze IV: 2 wing gondolas each having an MG 151/20.
Bf109K-4, by T. Poruba, A. Janda, 1997, JaPo Publishing 1977. Pag.80: Rustsatze R4, two additional MG 151/20 (135rpg). Pag.23 (in Czech). Bf 109K-4/R6: diagram with wigpods mounted. Pag.36 (in Czech) Bf109K-4 armament, altenatively: 1xMG151-20 engine mounted.
Please lets keep this thread civil.
-
HTC needs to put the MG151s on the K4 and back on the F4 and give them back some bombs. Just becuase most pilots didnt use them dosent mean you should take them away from us. They were available to them why cant they be available to us?
-
Why is it necessary to have a new thread every 2 days over gondolas on the K-4? If HT is going to add them he would have made his mind up after the first 3 or 4 threads.
-
Bruno, AFAIK this is the 2nd thread about the subject. I opened a new thread cuz the 1st one degenerated in personal attacks and OT posts, very far from the subject of the original post. I guess PYRO and HiTech dont read dozens of silly replies.
So, with a new source, I opened a new thread. Help me to keep it polite.
-
hey how about HTC add 4x 20mm hispanos on spitfires Vc, VIII, and IX
These fighters have the capability to carry 4 cannons, but they did not use them (except the spit Vc in afrika), the same reason why HTC did not add gondolas for 109K...
PS most gondolas showed up on 109Gs in large numbers, not Fs an Ks.
-
Originally posted by tikky
hey how about HTC add 4x 20mm hispanos on spitfires Vc, VIII, and IX
These fighters have the capability to carry 4 cannons, but they did not use them (except the spit Vc in afrika), the same reason why HTC did not add gondolas for 109K...
PS most gondolas showed up on 109Gs in large numbers, not Fs an Ks.
Did the spits come out of the factory with the 4 20mms? Well the 109s came out with the wing mounted MG151s, and if you didnt want them you could remove them. Thats why they should model them becuase they came on them. Just because some pilots took them off doesnt mean HTC should jsut take them out all together.
-
Originally posted by Larry
Did the spits come out of the factory with the 4 20mms?
Yes.
-
Then give us our gondies and bombs and the spitdweebs can have thier hurrispits.
-
Originally posted by gatt
Bruno, AFAIK this is the 2nd thread about the subject. I opened a new thread cuz the 1st one degenerated in personal attacks and OT posts, very far from the subject of the original post. I guess PYRO and HiTech dont read dozens of silly replies.
So, with a new source, I opened a new thread. Help me to keep it polite.
There were multiple whine threads in the General Discussion section of the forum right after the patch, there was one in the bug section. There's at least 4 threads in this section including the original where Pyro asked about load outs.
HTC reads the threads in this section the forum (so they have said).
Your first post didn't generate into 'personal attacks'. Widewing rightly contrasted your opinion in regards to gondolas with your post about fuel load outs in the General Discussion section. A personal attack is not pointing out hypocrisy and inconsistencies in your positions.
As I said in your other thread:
No one doubts that the K-4 had gondolas. Sources are already well established, a quick check of Caldwell's JG 26 is 'source' enough. However, pilots removed the gondolas. The K-4 wasn't hunting bombers and gondolas were detrimental to the pilots chances of survival.
I don't care anything about gondolas myself and I have no idea why HTC left them off as an option. Starting a new 'where's my gondolas thread' every couple of days may work to get them back, but some how I doubt it.
-
You can easily see how well Widewing contrasted the fuel-gaming argument. I respect Widewing but his arguments are weak.
As far as you are concerned, its clear you (and others) cannot keep this thread polite. If you cannot bring some good solid argument about the topic then stay away from the thread.
-
Originally posted by Larry
Then give us our gondies and bombs and the spitdweebs can have thier hurrispits.
I don't want the four cannon to be available on Spits. They were practically never used in combat.
Just the same as the Bf109F-4 and Bf109K-4.
-
I think one way to get around the problem of making "rarer" armament options available is to perk them. Its not that hard to code. Limit it to only options used in the war, but for a price, if you want a 109K-4 with gondolas, or a Spit VIII with 4 20mm, ok (and you get the extra weight and drag too).
I would make them pricey though, to avoid over use (thats why perked a/c exist). I guess thats fair, and at least it gets rid of all the debate about it. You could have the options to be able to be turned on or off depending on the arena in use.
-
As far as you are concerned, its clear you (and others) cannot keep this thread polite.
Please provide a quote of my 'impoliteness'...
'Impoliteness' isn't when some dissagrees with you.
You can easily see how well Widewing contrasted the fuel-gaming argument. I respect Widewing but his arguments are weak.
That maybe so but what you claimed was that the other thread:
degenerated in personal attacks and OT posts
Please quote the 'personal attacks' from the other thread.
A personal attack is not someone pointing out your own inconsistant positions.
-
Originally posted by gatt
I respect Widewing but his arguments are weak.
I have the greatest respect for you as well, but I believe that a non-historical arena should not have historical values selectively applied. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander too. That is why I agree that gondolas should be an option on any aircraft able to have them installed. Moreover, if a player wants to take 50% gas and a drop tank in their 109, be my guest. I don't think that this is gamey within the environment, it is a legitimate option. Perhaps very few, if any, did this in the real world, but this isn't the real world. No one should be denied any load-out within the scope of what's available in the hanger. For a historical game like TOD, your argument is correct and I agree with it within that context.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Purely for my own education as I don't know the answer.
How common was gondola use by 109s? I went through all my 109 books looking for photo evidence of front line units with gondolas.
The only place I seemed to find them showing up consistantly was in the MTO with JG27 or 53 on their G6s. Were these for hunting Allied bombers or for dogfighting?
I'd think it was for bomber hunting but not for dogfighting as the performance penalty would have offset the advantage of the more cannon.
Again, like the Spit Vc, just because it could carry 4 cannon, doesn't mean it makes sense for the game.
Personally I don't care if a 109 driver has gondolas. I figure unless I don't see him, that he's going to be easier to kill with the added weight and performance penalty from the gondolas. And if he's a good 109 stick, he's not going to need em to kill me anyway :)
My feeling is folks are just desperate for the hitting power to make things go pop faster and that the argument that historically they could carry the gondolas is just a cover for wanting to make it easier to kill in a definately non historic fashion in the MA.
So I guess the other question becomes, would Erich Hartmann have chosen to take gondolas or not, since the 109 fans are all would be Erich Hartmann's anyway :)
This would be Johnnie Johnson would never want a 4 cannon Spit V in a dogfight.
-
Oh my, I think I'll not post anymore for the next 6 months. Sure I didnt want to mess things up.
Wide,
honestly the K-4 pods request comes mainly from the loss of the G-10. Actually, the last patch made LW lost the best arena buff hunter. And I know it very well since it was my main ride for the last TODs. I'm not good in dogfighting, however it was good for cherrypicking into the furballs. Now, the K-4 with pods was rare but, AFAIK, many of them were delivered with them. After that those "Rustsatze" were removed by ground crew. So its not a fantasy request. Before the last patch we had a late war Bf109 with pods and it didnt unbalance the arena. I'm now asking to have it back. Nothing more.
Guppy,
from mid to late war many 109 were delivered to JG's. Many times JG's could not choose which type. Many times ground crews mounted or removed Rustsatze. Many times you can see 109G with pods flying with others without them. 109K pics are quite rare, 109K pics with pods are even more rare. AFAIK, during 1944 the main role of buff hunter was given to the FW190A's, with 109G's and then K's acting as cover. So there were few reasons to keep pods on 109 in real life.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Purely for my own education as I don't know the answer.
How common was gondola use by 109s? I went through all my 109 books looking for photo evidence of front line units with gondolas.
The only place I seemed to find them showing up consistantly was in the MTO with JG27 or 53 on their G6s. Were these for hunting Allied bombers or for dogfighting?
I'd think it was for bomber hunting but not for dogfighting as the performance penalty would have offset the advantage of the more cannon.
Again, like the Spit Vc, just because it could carry 4 cannon, doesn't mean it makes sense for the game.
I suggest you look up Prien and Rodeike oo, but I can give you dozens of examples of 109s using gondolas apart from the G-6.Russians for example captured both a 109G-2 and g-4 with gondolas, and tested them. Originally they even seem to develop the idea that the new 109g type is a kind of heavy fighter with thee cannons. I also recall one Finnish ace that was using gondola gunned 109G in dogfight very successfully. 109F-4/R1 also used gondola weapons, hell THAT's why it was built.. And sorry, why cant we use gondies if we want and if that was possible in real life?
Ie. some photos of G-2 and (the high altitude!) G-3 having gondolas.
[img=http://img44.potato.com/loc24/th_50c_23.jpg] (http://img44.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=50c_23.jpg)[img=http://img15.potato.com/loc24/th_a78_p29.jpg] (http://img15.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=a78_p29.jpg)[img=http://img46.potato.com/loc24/th_a09_p37.jpg] (http://img46.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=a09_p37.jpg)
The example with the 4-cannoned SpitV is kinda lame. The Spit wasn't carrying the four gun armament because it had structural problems when carrying a cannon at each point AND the bombracjk under the wing which just happened to be positioned uner the (outer?) cannon. It simply didnt used it, and it's simply false that 109s didnt use the gondies until the G-6, look at the photos below. It was simple the case that US heavy bombers only appeared in numbers in 1943, which happened to be the time the G-6 was introduced. Facing such tough, but unescorted bombers maximum firepower was required, and the loss of some speed was unimportant in that mission profile.
The fact is rather simple : all Bf 109s from the 109F4/R1 type through the 109k-4 could mount gondola weapons and were preperared for that in the factory, ie. wiring running for the guns in the wings etc. Some even had these stuff installed in the factory. So they should have it, all of them. They had the option in real life.
-
Kurfurst,
Well, in AH the Bf109G-2, Bf109G-6 and Bf109G-14 all have the 20mm gondolas as an option. The only two in discussion are the Bf109F-4 and Bf109K-4 and how often they flew in combat with the gondolas. So far as I can tell it is about as often as Spitfire Mk Vcs went into combat with four 20mm cannon. ( As to the Spits, what structural problems are you talking about? I've only read that the four cannon were not used due to the performance hit and because there were problems heating the cannon in the outer bay. )
-
I dont think that numbers per se has ever been a limiting factor in AH2. Less than 300 C.205 were built and even less were 3rd Series types with 2x20mm. How many F4U-1C has been built and seen combat? If 4x20mm Spitfire has been built and delivered to combat units than .... hell, lets get them in AH: I have my butt crippled on a regular basis by 2x20mm Spitties so ....
If the G-10 was still here with his pods I'd have no problem with the actual LW plane set. The problem is that we lost a plane and his complete loadout and the one we got has only a fraction of it.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Kurfurst,
Well, in AH the Bf109G-2, Bf109G-6 and Bf109G-14 all have the 20mm gondolas as an option. The only two in discussion are the Bf109F-4 and Bf109K-4 and how often they flew in combat with the gondolas. So far as I can tell it is about as often as Spitfire Mk Vcs went into combat with four 20mm cannon.
Sorry but where's the evidence the 109K did not use gunpods as much regularly as the G-10 or G-14 ? Is this an assumption ? Cool, but then let's use similiar assumption for for all planes, and remove all loadout options until it's proven the particular uitem was used in combat. Let's start with Spitfires, and remove all droptanks, bombs and rocket options until there's evidence that they were used in combat often.But then of course we need to define what is 'often'. After all, I can find dozens and dozens of pictures showing Spits without any bomb or droptank. Perhaps for the same reason I can find dozens and dozens of pictures of 109 w/o DT, bomb or gondies. All these items were a matter of minutes to install or remove. They were not permanent parts but kits.
There are not many photos of 109K around, most of what I have seen were made in October of the planes JG 77 - now considering that some 1700 109K were produced, and saw action on all fronts with dozens of units, I'd say it's rather reaching to say to base such conclusion on a rather limited number of photos made in a limited time and area of operations. How many photos of 109K did you see in the air? Of 109K flying in formation? Well personally I didnt see any photos of 109K in formation, so let's just assume they couldn't fly in formation. Have you seen any photos of 109K in combat...? I didn't, wait, then it didn't even see combat! Have you seen photos of 109K produced in the Erla factory, I haven't, but there are factory delivery records showing the production being started there in 1945. Guppy for example couldn't find any pictures of 109G earlier than G-6 carrying gondies; but as I have shown, there are pictures for the earlier variants carrying gondies as well. Just as it was shown the JG 26 had 109Ks with gondies. The manual notes them; JG 26 war diary notes them : they were possible to mount and were in operational use. That's evidence enough to implement them for those who wants to use them. I can't get why it bothers people so much that the 109K would have gondies anyway - it would be most useful against bombers in the first place, or in the hands of some experts who'd specialize in Energy tactics with Go-waffen.
Sorry, the 109K gondies were not some of those things that existed on paper only.
Regarding the 109F-4 and gondies, hmmm, Messerschmitt produced several hundred of the F-4/R1 type with the very intent to make that subtype capable of carrying gunpods unlike other 109F; it's a rather silly suggestion that the type was not used for the very purpose it was created, ie. to carry gunpods.
( As to the Spits, what structural problems are you talking about? I've only read that the four cannon were not used due to the performance hit and because there were problems heating the cannon in the outer bay. ) [/B]
IIRC it was A Price who mentions the 4 cannon version was not used because the wing bomb rack was situated just under the cannon port, so when using bomb on wign + 4 cannons it caused too much load on the same point, and thus the 4 cannon option was not used. The MkIX was also a lot heavier than the MkV for which the C wing was originally designed, the loads on the wing increased further. So it's seems a structural problem, not very surprising given the MkIX was an 'ad hoc' interim solution; components were stressed for the weight of the MkV, not the heavier MkIX.
-
Another source:
Messerschmitt Bf 109F - K: Development, Testing, Production. By W.Radinger, W.Otto. Schiffer Publishing 1999.
Bf109F-4 R/1, Pag.20:
There is the complete description of the testing of the 2xMG151-20 underwing armament. Since it was necessary to increase firepower for the anti-bomber role, trials begun on 28/05/42 and ended on 02/06/42 on W.Nr.13149. As a result it was determined that: The MG 151/20 wing gondola armament performs satisfactorily.
Bf109K-4, Pag.37:
Rustsatz 4, consisted of two MG151-20 cannon, one beneath each wing in gondola-shaped fairings.
On Pag.38 there is the description of how those weapons were cocked.
There are few doubts that those Rustsatze were tested and produced. How many were delivered or mounted by ground crews ? Only God knows, since this Rustsatze system is very different from the allied's one.
-
I would say give them all the options and then enable or disable them if needed for escenarios, MA, CT or whatever else.
-
Kurfurst,
You may be right about the rockets on the Spit. I have seen photos, but I know nothing about how often they were carried.
As far as the bombs and droptanks, those were carried with great frequency. The logs of Spitfire pilots back this up. There is no doubt whatsoever of it. The Tempest in AH does not have an option to carry rockets as it did not do so during WWII, even though it could have.
As to the gunpods on the F-4 and K-4, all that has been shown is that some were delivered with them and subsequently most of those had them removed. That some were delived with them is not in question, what is in question is wether or not that loadout was anything other than extremely rare on a combat aircraft.
Personally I don't care which way it goes in regards to the Bf109's gunpods. I don't use the gunpods when I fly a Bf109 anyways and Bf109s with the gunpods are just easier kills.
-
There's never been any question as to if the K-4, or F-4/R1 for that matter, had gondolas. No one said they didn't.
For the F-4/R1:
Butch said:
On the Friedrich Gondolas were only available on the F-4/R1 which featured different wings from previous versions, a Rüstsatz (R VII ; MG151/20 Gondolas) was made available for that variant only.
AFAIR only 240 /R1 a/c were produced.
240 R1s produced and not all of those had gondolas.
You can read the original thread here: 109 armament options (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=162110)
HTC hasn't given any reason why the K-4, or F-4, doesn't have the gondola options any more. They don't lack 'sources' or 'opinions', these are readily apparent. Same goes for the G-6 with no 3cm option. I can only speculate that HTC is moving toward more 'representative' aircraft for ToD, where this type of thing will be important. For the Main the G-14 has both gondolas and 3cm. Hopefully, they will get the G-14s speed fixed in the next patch.
Personally, as one who only flies LW planes, I agree with all 3 decisions. What's that old Ami pilot saying,
'if you can't hit with one in the centerline, then you can't with 3'
I would say give them all the options and then enable or disable them if needed for escenarios, MA, CT or whatever else.
That was a counter suggestion to removal. However, for whatever reason, they decided just to remove some of those options. At current, there's is no CM option to limit or regulate load outs.
In fact I said this in the thread linked above:
Then there' the new and upcoming arena Tour Of Duty, which is mission / theater based. I am only concerned with these arenas. In the main a 109F with or without gondolas gets little overall usage, same with the G-6 (with or with out MK 108s). None of the decisions Pyro has to make really have an effect on the Main Arena.
That's why I said if there are no CM (community manager) tools that allow the regulation of load-outs, or maybe even the number or percentage of a particular load-out (say 12 F-4/R1s and the rest standard), then in these other arenas the 'historical immersion' and to a degree the 'historical balance' gets upset.
As an example in a NA event where 90% of the F-4s are tooling about with gondolas just for extra ammo / fire power. Or in '43 unescorted bombers flying to target get attacked by G-6s with all with MK 108s (and / or gondolas as well). This gives a significant and 'non-historical' advantage that could come close to ruining game play. 181 G-6/U4s in '43 is certainly not significant by any use of the word.
-
I'm not getting into the argument, but I would just like to say the following:
You can't have both ways.
You either have to keep all of the planes restricted to what was actually used most of the time in the war, or you have to give every single plane every single option it had.
I believe that the second solution is best, with some modifications.
I.E. Perk rarer or more powerful armament loadouts.
Also make each armament loadout toglable. So someone setting up TOD or a Scenario can limit the plane to what it actually used.
-
No aircraft in AH has every single load out option available. They set limits some where (for whatever reason) for each aircraft. It's not ' unfair' or 'unjust' in anyway in limiting options on LW planes. If anything the argument should be to correct the load out options on the other aircraft so they reflect the more 'representative' type in service.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
If anything the argument should be to correct the load out options on the other aircraft so they reflect the more 'representative' type in service.
Which, to my mind, they have done on both the Bf109s and Spitfires, with the possible exception of rockets on the Spitfire Mk XVI on which I have no information. Dan very well may have that information though.
For example the Spitfires lack their rarer, larger droptanks. in AH as they were not the norm.
-
Again, it seems to me it comes down to what makes sense for the game and what is the best use of HTC resources.
The Spit V we have is the very early, least formidible version of the V. It makes sense for the game.
I can point to 39 different engine, wing, armament combinations for the Spitfire V. I can scream to high heaven about how unfair it is we don't have all 39 combinations.
But that doesn't make sense. What gives us the best representative line up of Spitfires? I think HTC has done that fairly well and I'll not complain.
Personally I think the 109 line up looks pretty good too.
And back to why I asked about gondola use. How common was it on the Fs and Ks? Just because it could be used, is there photo or documentary evidence that it was used on a large scale regular basis?
I don't know. That's all I was asking. All I could find was fairly common use with JG27 and 53 on G-6s in the MTO.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Which, to my mind, they have done on both the Bf109s and Spitfires, with the possible exception of rockets on the Spitfire Mk XVI on which I have no information. Dan very well may have that information though.
For example the Spitfires lack their rarer, larger droptanks. in AH as they were not the norm.
Rocket use was limited on the XVI. They did it, but it was from what I read, considered a poor substitute for the 250 pound bombs as it involved different run ins to the targets and was less accurate.
I think what we got with the XVI is the most representative of how it was used in operational service, which is to say that it most often would have been lugging three bombs, or two bombs and the 30 gallon belly tank.
Again, just because it could, doesn't mean it makes sense to have.
-
Dan,
That is the thing though, the Mk XVI in AH can take the two rockets if the player wants to.
In my opinion two rockets are pretty worthless, so I doubt it gets used much, the the option is there. (They even redid the 3D model for the rockets on the MK XVI)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Dan,
That is the thing though, the Mk XVI in AH can take the two rockets if the player wants to.
In my opinion two rockets are pretty worthless, so I doubt it gets used much, the the option is there. (They even redid the 3D model for the rockets on the MK XVI)
Would you agree that the notion of gondolas on Fs or Ks has more to do with MA, kill em quick, then anything historical for ToD?
The XVI is set up for the ground attack role it would have played historically aka ToD
-
Dan,
Yes, that is self evident.
I don't think the two rockets on the Spit ever got used very much as they don't do enough damage. Rockets are only really useful in quantity. I was just pointing out that it does have them.
From my AH1 testing 8 of the RAF rockets is slightly more than 1000lbs of bombs in effectiveness. That would make the two 250lb bombs about twice as powerful as the two rockets.
-
The G-10 had gondolas and no one whined in the past. Very few players are buff hunters and the G-10 with gondolas was a pretty fat target for many other aircraft in the arena.
It is weird to see so many players against pods on the K-4, argumenting like lawyers about them, defending last HTC loadout policy.
Was the arena unbalanced when the G-10 with pods was in the hangar? Did we have photos, documents, trials, factory numbers and squadron diaries to support such loadout? And, as far as performance is concerned, the K-4 and the G-10 are equal (HTC words).
Do all the experten wake up now that someone is asking to have something *back*? Not something more. Not a non existent Rustsatze. Not something not delivered to JG.
Really weird ...
-
Gatt,
It has zero to do with balance and 100% to do with historical representation. It is the same reason you'll only ever see me advocate against quad cannon Spits and why I pushed for so long to get corrected Spit models and am very happy to have finally gotten them.
-
Shouldnt u guys be happy with 109K-4?;) 109K is also one of the most requested planes in AH.
-
Originally posted by gatt
The G-10 had gondolas and no one whined in the past. Very few players are buff hunters and the G-10 with gondolas was a pretty fat target for many other aircraft in the arena.
It is weird to see so many players against pods on the K-4, argumenting like lawyers about them, defending last HTC loadout policy.
Was the arena unbalanced when the G-10 with pods was in the hangar? Did we have photos, documents, trials, factory numbers and squadron diaries to support such loadout? And, as far as performance is concerned, the K-4 and the G-10 are equal (HTC words).
Do all the experten wake up now that someone is asking to have something *back*? Not something more. Not a non existent Rustsatze. Not something not delivered to JG.
Really weird ...
HTC took the sissy way out by modeling 109G-10 instead of 109K-4 5 years ago. They modeled 109G-10 with 109K-4's performance. The real 109G-10 should have the performance similar to 109G-14.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Gatt,
It has zero to do with balance and 100% to do with historical representation.
Of course ;)
Still waiting for a question: were the 190A5 MG17 and 190A8 MG131 "historically" removed by their pilots? Were they taking off without loading their ammo?
Do you remember that interesting AMI planes option of loading half the ammo?
-
1K3,
The Bf109G-10 would have had better performance at altitude than the Bf109G-14 and would have topped out at about 425mph.
They are significantly different aircraft.
MANDO,
Good points. I'd love the option to dump them. Can't you post some data on the frequency of that?
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Gatt,
It is the same reason you'll only ever see me advocate against quad cannon Spits and why I pushed for so long to get corrected Spit models and am very happy to have finally gotten them.
Ah Karnak, I dont remember how many times I asked for more mid-late war Spitfires. It was a shame to have only that early MkIX.
And see what I got, I lost my beloved G-10 with and without pods ;)
But I dont give up ....
-
Originally posted by gatt
Very few players are buff hunters and the G-10 with gondolas was a pretty fat target for many other aircraft in the arena.
...
I flew the G10 with gondolas, most of the time, but was not soo"fat target", the diference in flight turn, climb were not bad with gondies. Intercepting bombers was my best fun.
Imop, in ToD, the role of LW is going to be more bomber interception than dogfight, K-4 is not eficient without gondies, cuz the hit chances and balistic of mk108 is more lottery than training and experience,
-
Originally posted by gatt
Ah Karnak, I dont remember how many times I asked for more mid-late war Spitfires. It was a shame to have only that early MkIX.
And see what I got, I lost my beloved G-10 with and without pods ;)
But I dont give up ....
Remember though that my old request from years ago had been to simply remove the rockets and .50 cals from the Spit IX with no gain at all in another Spitfire.
-
I can see why the F4 lost gondolas. Sure, it's a gameplay balance issue. You can still get kills with the F4, just not as many and not against a horde. However when used in historical scenarios, it is a better representation of the F4.
However the loss on the K4 baffles me. The plane is all but useless. I fear the G14 more than K4. I've seen a lot of K4s that had me dead to rights, square in their gunsite, and I saw the single tracer from the prop go whizzing past-- and missed me by a mile every time. This weapon (the 30mm) has always been screwed up royally since AH1 came out. C'est la Vie. C'est la Guer. Without gondolas I won't ever fear a 109K4. It's just not worth worrying about when the G14 is about, and even that flies like the old G6 (which is nothing to brag about) so it's easily dealt with.
-
Originally posted by 1K3
The real 109G-10 should have the performance similar to 109G-14.
Not really....well maybe with the G-14/AS :)
The G-10 should have a perfomance very similar to the K-4 at same engine rating (just a bit slower)
Don't be confused with the denomination, both planes were contemporary (IIRC the K-4 enter in service even before the G-10).
-
Karnak,
Originally posted by Karnak
Which, to my mind, they have done on both the Bf109s and Spitfires, with the possible exception of rockets on the Spitfire Mk XVI on which I have no information. Dan very well may have that information though.
For example the Spitfires lack their rarer, larger droptanks. in AH as they were not the norm.
That's what it looks like to me as well. Yet, to others this is just another reason to cry and whine...
Dan,
I can point to 39 different engine, wing, armament combinations for the Spitfire V. I can scream to high heaven about how unfair it is we don't have all 39 combinations.
But that doesn't make sense. What gives us the best representative line up of Spitfires? I think HTC has done that fairly well and I'll not complain.
Personally I think the 109 line up looks pretty good too.
I agree 100% (provided the G-14 gets adjusted a bit)
How common was it on the Fs and Ks?
For the F-4 only the F-4/R1 - R VII (MG151/20 Gondolas). Only 240 F-4/R1s were produced and even fewer actually had gondolas.
For the K-4, every pilot anecdote I have read in regards to the K-4 and gondolas hated them and removed them. I don't how many but JG26 received K-4s with gondolas.
Would you agree that the notion of gondolas on Fs or Ks has more to do with MA, kill em quick, then anything historical for ToD?
That's exactly what it is all about.
Gatt,
The G-10 had gondolas and no one whined in the past. Very few players are buff hunters and the G-10 with gondolas was a pretty fat target for many other aircraft in the arena.
Most didn't care because the old G-10 wasn't even a G-10 to begin with. It was always a K-4 in performance with inaccurate load out options. Now its fixed and represents a true K-4. Also, no one even whined to make sure there were no gondolas for the K-4. Please point to one post that can be considered a whine in regards to gondolas needing to be removed.
It is weird to see so many players against pods on the K-4, argumenting like lawyers about them, defending last HTC loadout policy.
Who are those 'many players against pods on the K-4'? I am not against them, I simply don't care. Who else? Karnak? He said he didn't care either. The whole thing is a non-issue. I bet 90% of folks who play AH could careless. Its only the same 3 or so folks keep yapping for gondolas. If HTC is going added them it sure won't be because of the 'where's my gondola' threads that pop up every 2 days.
Ik3,
HTC took the sissy way out by modeling 109G-10 instead of 109K-4 5 years ago. They modeled 109G-10 with 109K-4's performance. The real 109G-10 should have the performance similar to 109G-14.
Nonsense, they called it the G-10 simple so they could slip in the MG151/2cm option and nothing else. The G-10 was completely different in terms of performance over the G-14. The G-10 and G-14 aren't the 'same'.
MANDO,
Still waiting for a question: were the 190A5 MG17 and 190A8 MG131 "historically"
Karnak didn't say 'historically', he said:
historical representation
Which mean aircraft the are more 'representative of history'. Some 190 pilots removed the cowl guns etc.. But this was hardly the norm and in no way would be 'historical representation'.
There are no Ami aircraft in AH that take 1/2 ammo. There's standard and overload.
ghi,
Imop, in ToD, the role of LW is going to be more bomber interception than dogfight, K-4 is not eficient without gondies, cuz the hit chances and balistic of mk108 is more lottery than training and experience,
I bet you would be wrong. If the late 109s are tasked with 'buff hunting' in ToD then ToD will suck and fail. 109s (light gruppe) should be tasked with providing cover for the heavy gruppe, mostly 190s. If 109s fail to cover and protect the true buff hunters and engage the bombers then they should fail their mission. As such there should be no need for the K-4 to have gondolas in ToD. Ya think maybe that is why HTC didn't bother to add them to begin with?
As Dan suggested above this gondola campaign is about:
the notion of gondolas on Fs or Ks has more to do with MA, kill em quick, then anything historical for ToD...
-
:aok
-
Originally posted by Bruno
There are no Ami aircraft in AH that take 1/2 ammo. There's standard and overload.
Did they remove that option? Please, go to the hangar, select a P47 or P38 and check the MG loadout option.
-
Originally posted by MANDO
Did they remove that option? Please, go to the hangar, select a P47 or P38 and check the MG loadout option.
MANDO,
He is saying that the lighter load is the standard load and the heavier load the overload.
I can't speak to that on the American planes, but that is true on the Mosquito Mk VI and N1K2-J.
If the trend started with these new Bf109s and Spitfires holds I would not be surprised to see the Mosquito Mk VI lose it's overload capability or for the La-7 to lose its three cannon option.
-
I like the trend towards options that were really used, and that pass a common sense test.
Agree on the Spits and 109s, I think they have been done properly. They don't have every single option available, nor should they, and the rest of the a/c should follow.
Just a quick word on the Spit XVIs rockets, those are correct. There are only 2 of them, its not a very heavy load (compared to Tiffie or Mossie), but the E wing was used to carry them. Its not a "what-if" loadout, and they are strictly air-ground anyways. I have a photo of them being loaded on a 2nd TAF Spit XVI. Im sure Dan has more than I do.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
MANDO,
He is saying that the lighter load is the standard load and the heavier load the overload.
I can't speak to that on the American planes, but that is true on the Mosquito Mk VI and N1K2-J.
If the trend started with these new Bf109s and Spitfires holds I would not be surprised to see the Mosquito Mk VI lose it's overload capability or for the La-7 to lose its three cannon option.
Sadly, the trend has begun with the K-4 with no gondolas. I am curious to see if and when allied planes will loose *important* armament loadouts (not 2x12,7mm for 4x7mm).
Bruno,
no one said there were whines about the incoming K-4 with or without gondolas. Sure, no one thought HTC would have eliminated the G-10 and given us a K-4 with only the 30mm option.
We played with the so called inaccurate G-10 for how many years? Five? Where were all the LW experten? This "everything HTC does is perfect" attitude is at least suspect.
And BTW, there are many sources stating that the same Rustsatze was mounted on the G-10 series as well.
And please dont tell me that the 30mm armed 109K-4 is as good at buff hunting as the G-10 with gondolas. Nothing personal, but it would mean that you dont know what buff hunting is in AH and was in RL.
-
Originally posted by gatt
Sure, no one thought HTC would have eliminated the G-10 and given us a K-4 with only the 30mm option.
What? This was, I thought, common knowledge long before v2.06 was released.
I certainly knew it the moment Pyro said the Bf109G-10 was going to be removed and the Bf109K-4 added in it's place. That was, as I recall, long before the first Bf109 screenshot was posted.
-
"I am curious to see if and when allied planes will loose *important* armament loadouts"
Which is, of course, the real issue with many. Not what the a/c should be armed with or what they should fly like. Its just about "scoring" with your side.
-
Bruno,
no one said there were whines about the incoming K-4 with or without gondolas.
You said:
The G-10 had gondolas and no one whined in the past.
No one whined at any time (past, present or future) that the K-4 shouldn't have gondolas. That was HTC decision alone. Saying 'whined in the past' could imply that there was 'whining' at some point.
Sure, no one thought HTC would have eliminated the G-10 and given us a K-4 with only the 30mm option.
Everyone with eyes to read knew that the AH G-10 was just a K-4 mis-named. Pyro said as much years ago. Everyone knew with 2.06 that the AH G-10 would be re-named 'K-4' and that the load outs would change to reflect that (no MG151/2cm option). There were many post on this forum, do a search.
Where were all the LW experten? This "everything HTC does is perfect" attitude is at least suspect.
And BTW, there are many sources stating that the same Rustsatze was mounted on the G-10 series as well.
What does that have to do with it? Where were all your whines weeks ago when Pyro asked about 109 load outs? The G-10 had been discussed for years. HTC had other priorities, now with ToD coming they need to get the planes straightened out. That is what they are doing and that is a good thing.
I know what load outs the 109s could carry. Neither of us know why HTC left off the K-4s gondolas. I could careless if any of the 109s had gondolas. The K-4 is fighter and 3cm make it a deadly one and I have no need for gondolas.
And please dont tell me that the 30mm armed 109K-4 is as good at buff hunting as the G-10 with gondolas. Nothing personal, but it would mean that you dont know what buff hunting is in AH and was in RL.
Really? In the 1st AH Big Week scenario I shot 10 B-17s in 4 frames no losses or damage. I shot down 10 B-17s in the main flying a G-6 no gondolas in one sortie (3cm only). During the last period in which I flew regularly in the AH main I basically just flew the G-6 (several of my G-6 skins were in game prior to the last patch).
Here's a link showing my 'scores' over that time frame.:
See here (http://www.innomi.com/ahkillstats/careerstats.php?player=Batz&sortby=killsin_sort)
According to that page I went 23 B-17 kills with 2 deaths (collisions with warping drones IIRC). I only fly in the AH main occasionally now. However, I flew the first few tours after AH2 (and all the AH2 betas) but didn't and still don't care anything about bombers because they are boring. I am not posting 'scores' to show I am some great player but don't come to me and act like you are the only one who 'knows' anything about playing this game. 3cm is more then enough to kill any plane you get in your sites.
As for real life I know plenty and have many post on this forum for you to go look.
You can start in this this (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=158080) thread.
I am curious to see if and when allied planes will loose *important* armament loadouts (not 2x12,7mm for 4x7mm).
Squire is right, the above is what it's all about. Those darned EZ-mode allies are always getting over. 'Woe is the Luftwaffe fan...'
-
Bruno, to be success with AH Mk108 you need two things:
1 - Get used to its very poor ballistics and its big dispersion.
2 - Have a smooth game, that is, good frame-rate.
I understand that most 109 flyers will prefer 20mm over 30mm any day, even if you give them a single MG151/20.
-
Well Bruno,
you should then know that to be efficient in buff hunting in the long period (I mean hundreds of kills for many TOD's):
- You need to be fast during multiple attacks. The single 30mm burst from 200yds usually means pure luck and a sleeping or busy buff pilot.
- You often need to fire with some deflection, and the 30mm doesnt allow any deflection at high speed.
- You often need to attack with HOs and begin to fire at 500yds for about half/one (a) second and the single 30mm weapon is not the right weapon.
- You need a good ammo load and 65 rounds are not the optimum.
- You need skills: real buff hunting is at altitude, not the lucky jump on a 5K flying Lancaster formation. Up there you need the right aircraft and the right weapon.
In other words the single 30mm, even if deadly, oblige you to *stay there*, close to the buff, for some seconds. The kill in these conditions, with enuff numbers analyzed (*many* kills in *many* TODs) means generally *luck*, not *skill*.
We dont have radar guide to pick bombers climbing and assembling, we dont have the time to assemble FW190A-7/8s, covered by high flying 109G-sK and 190D-9s. We play in the Main, we are often alone and the buff encounters at medium-high altitude are often due to pure luck or a very good experienced eye on the radar. We are not in a Scenario where all this things are planned in advance.
BTW, I expected remarks from players used to double standards: consider only *how many* loadout options have the P-51s and P-47s, even if you consider only the Brownings numbers and ammo loadout. Thinking about those options the K-4 with pods issue looks ridiculous.
It is not difficult to understand that the Rustsatze system means *no standardization*. It means we cannot demonstrate how many G-6, G-14 and K-4 were delivered with or without pods, how many were mounted or dismounted by ground crews, how many pilots changed their decisions during the war.
It means we have little defence against players that dont want a good buff interceptor like the one we had. And this is normal competition in a game. The problem is that even LW experten are now arguing against it, go figure ....
-
Hey, BTW, very interesting statistics site! In about 100hrs I should get the updated ones ;)
-
Well Bruno,
you should then know that to be efficient in buff hunting in the long period (I mean hundreds of kills for many TOD's):
I have played AH since tour 2 or 3 (some time in AH1 beta as well). I have killed 100s of bombers. You can't tell me anything about it I already don't know. The fact you have problems doesn't mean it's universal.
We dont have radar guide to pick bombers climbing and assembling, we dont have the time to assemble FW190A-7/8s, covered by high flying 109G-sK and 190D-9s. We play in the Main, we are often alone and the buff encounters at medium-high altitude are often due to pure luck or a very good experienced eye on the radar. We are not in a Scenario where all this things are planned in advance.
You can make any rationalization you want but those are your problems.
I expected remarks from players used to double standards: consider only *how many* loadout options have the P-51s and P-47s, even if you consider only the Brownings numbers and ammo loadout. Thinking about those options the K-4 with pods issue looks ridiculous.
I don't care anything about allied aircraft load out options. It makes no difference to me at all. You aren't 'cheated' because they can carry double ammo and the K-4 only has a 3cm. It's apparent it bothers you though, just as Squire said:
"I am curious to see if and when allied planes will loose *important* armament loadouts"
Which is, of course, the real issue with many. Not what the a/c should be armed with or what they should fly like. Its just about "scoring" with your side.
It is not difficult to understand that the Rustsatze system means *no standardization*. It means we cannot demonstrate how many G-6, G-14 and K-4 were delivered with or without pods, how many were mounted or dismounted by ground crews, how many pilots changed their decisions during the war.
It doesn't matter, in AH2 the K-4 doesn't have gondolas. I guess you can post a new 'where's my gondolas' thread every couple of days or learn to adapt.
It means we have little defence against players that dont want a good buff interceptor like the one we had. And this is normal competition in a game. The problem is that even LW experten are now arguing against it, go figure ....
The K-4 with 3cm is just as able as ever to kill bombers or fighters. The fact you have problems doesn't mean that LW fans are incapable of shooting down bombers. Killing bombers is no 'competition' its boring point and click.
No one is arguing 'against gondolas'. Some just don't believe it's the 'game killer' that folks like yourself have made it out to be. All those things that you claim about how 'useless' a single 3cm cannon is in getting kills is just nonsense. The problems you have as an individual don't translate universally to everyone.
-
It is not difficult to understand that the Rustsatze system means *no standardization*. It means we cannot demonstrate how many G-6, G-14 and K-4 were delivered with or without pods, how many were mounted or dismounted by ground crews, how many pilots changed their decisions during the war.
Quite the contrary...
It was a de-facto standardisation, indeed every a/c was able to load the rüstsatzen defined for its type. Any K-4 was able to load a droptank or gondolas, it's just a matter or whether they were needed at the time.
DT or gondolas were standards and could be fitted to any 109 (beginning with F-4/R1 for gondolas, beginning with E-7 for the DT). The gondolas were designed so as to be easily removed and put back if needed. The a/c were not necessarily delivered with them when leaving the factory but could at any time be fitted with them. And since gondolas were made in a single model it meant they could be fitted to any 109.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
[
I bet you would be wrong. If the late 109s are tasked with 'buff hunting' in ToD then ToD will suck and fail. 109s (light gruppe) should be tasked with providing cover for the heavy gruppe, mostly 190s. If 109s fail to cover and protect the true buff hunters and engage the bombers then they should fail their mission. As such there should be no need for the K-4 to have gondolas in ToD. Ya think maybe that is why HTC didn't bother to add them to begin with?
As Dan suggested above this gondola campaign is about: [/B]
Yes , if the FWs are going to be fixed, untill that are only 2 LW planes able to intercept high alt bombers are K-4/Ta152. You have to make passes on a formations, the FWs can't do it . I wonder why did they call the A8 "butcher bird", cuz the way is modeled and the bombers are modeled is useless.
Did you try to intercept a formation of bombers high alt in FWA8/A5 ? The loaded Lancs,B17,24s are outruning/outclimbing any FWs at high alt, but what's curious,the bombing is accurate from 30K full speed, .
the ToD is going to be a joke without major changes,
-
Yes , if the FWs are going to be fixed, untill that are only 2 LW planes able to intercept high alt bombers are K-4/Ta152. You have to make passes on a formations, the FWs can't do it . I wonder why did they call the A8 "butcher bird", cuz the way is modeled and the bombers are modeled is useless.
Bombers in ToD will be given historical mission profiles. There will be no 'high alt bombers'. Bombers in ETO dropped from an average altitude of about 17k feet. Some as low as 9k feet, few were above 22k feet. Above 22k hit probability dropped off drastically. Even the vaunted B-29 over Japan was forced to drop from lower altitudes because they were incapable hitting their targets above 20k feet. During the discussions in preparation for the Ruhr event I believe Jordi posted a link to bomber sorties showing their cruise and target/drop alt of the bombers. Of the 100s of sorties only around 25 or so were above 22k feet. I will see if I can't find that thread.
That said the FW 190 doesn't need 'fixing'. The A-8 and A-5 in AH are fine. Despite the LWhine propaganda to the contrary their numbers match historic flight data. The A series 190s performance fell of rapidly above 22k feet. Just like they do in AH. As I mentioned above in the first AH Big Week Scenario the alt cap for bombers was 28k. Between 25 and 28k I shot down 10 over 4 frames. I even killed a P-38L and a P-47D-11. Guys in my flight killed several P-51bs as well, all above 25k. The LW flew the G-6 and the A-8 during that event. This issue is only about the Main Arena, lets not pretend its about anything else.
The D-9 in AH actually performs a little better then it should. As forum member Naudet has posted extensively on this forum about the D-9. He recently received from NASM actual flight test data of the D-9.
But for those that are interested in the FW190D documents from the NASM here are their designations:
1. FW/Fb/FW190-210001 (1-2)
Reel: 8069 Frame: 1153
2. FW/Fb/FW/210001/(3)
Reel: 2861 Frame: 989
3. FW/Fb/FW190-210002 (1,2,3)
Reel: 3996 Frame: 343
4. FW/FW190/Sch/16/3/45
Reel 2731 Frame: 797
Those four together will be exactly 50 pages, so if you order them, you won't exceed the limit per order.
-
Butch,
with standardization I meant something easy to carry into AH as standard. The way much of the allied loadout are, so they are (or seem to me) easy to put in the AH2 hangar.
Bruno,
it seems to me you understand only what you want to. The only thing *I* understand from your words is that, again, you really dont know what *efficient* buff killing should be. Saying that our single 30mm is as (or more) efficient at buff killing than 3x20mm with 400rds and that we didnt loose anything from the G-10 to the K-4, says it all. You find buff killing boring, thats probably why you could not care less about it. No problem, but I dont find anything interesting in replying to you.
BTW, Bruno, to see how good you are with the K-4 I took a look at your score (as Batz, is it right?) in the last TOD. But I cant find anything. I dont find almost any K/D above 1 for the entire 2005. Is it me or the score system not working?
-
Originally posted by gatt
BTW, Bruno, to see how good you are with the K-4 I took a look at your score (as Batz, is it right?) in the last TOD. But I cant find anything. I dont find almost any K/D above 1 for the entire 2005. Is it me or the score system not working?
Well, since you are re-teaching us theory and practice about dogfighting and buff hunting, about FM modelling and a/c behaviour ... where all this science come from? I had to go back to early 2003 to find a TOD where you flew. And looks like you havent ever touched a K-4. Please enlighten me.
-
Originally posted by gatt
Butch,
with standardization I meant something easy to carry into AH as standard. The way much of the allied loadout are, so they are (or seem to me) easy to put in the AH2 hangar.
Sorry Gatt,
i'm not familiar with the AH way of handling the loadouts.
cheers,
Olivier
-
Ah Butch, I'm not familiar with the english language. This doesnt help me in hot threads, you know. Rereading my post I realized it was not so clear ;)
I just wanted to say that probably in AH is easier to design and implement allied loadouts. Actually very few discussions arise about them, I remember one about 2x12,7mm or 4x7,7mm on some Spitfires.
On the German side, the many 109's and 190's different types, engines and loadouts are probably more difficult to standardize and put in the AH hangar.
-
Well, since you are re-teaching us theory and practice about dogfighting and buff hunting, about FM modelling and a/c behaviour ... where all this science come from? I had to go back to early 2003 to find a TOD where you flew. And looks like you havent ever touched a K-4. Please enlighten me.
I fly under a different nik now but I rarely play AH now.
Since you seem pre-occupied with me here's a bit of history:
My AH game niks were 'Wotan' and 'Batz'. I began AH it tour 2 or so as Wotan. I flew the Ah betas but I don't recall my nik. I left AH after 3 years or so. I came back to AH as 'Batz' after a few months. I was asked and volunteered to CO the Niemen event but my work schedule prevented me from fulfilling my commitment. Fariz took over and I agreed to aid him as an 'XO'. As frame 1 began I started a new account as 'Batz'.
I was originally just going to help in that event and leave but was asked by another player and friend, Brady, if I would be interested in co-Co'ing another AH event 'Guadalcanal'. I did and kept the nik Batz. Once again I planned on leaving AH after that event. As is turned out I was then asked to Co another event 'Okinawa' and did so still flying as 'Batz'. After the Okinawa event I left AH but sometime later Brady and I designed the Kurland event. I returned to AH early to help out with the Ruhr event (I agreed to help with the Ruhr event to get CM experience for Kurland). After Ruhr and Kurland (Naso was the Axis Co for Kurland but his CPU got stolen after frame 2).
I left AH again came back for the AH2 betas. I emailed Skuzzy and got my old 'Wotan' nik back. I flew the first few tours after AH2 went gold. I came back again under a new nik for the last patch but rl has kept from 'playing much'.
I was also a CT CM for about year. I was Axis Co the first AH BoB event as 'Wotan'. I also am an admin for a private 'event style' FB/AEP/PF server. This server is invite only and runs staged events / scenarios. I also flew many other flight games going back many many years (from WBs to EAW ect...)
There should be no scores for either 'Wotan' and 'Batz' in 2005. I rarely ever fly in the main anymore and won't fly much of AH until ToD is released. I only have 2 hours or so since the last patch, none in the K-4. I probably wont ever fly the K-4 since AH now has the G-14. The only K-4 sortie I flew was off line to check climb and speed. But don't pretend the 3cm on the K-4 with any different then 3cm on the G-10 or G-14 or the old G-6 for that matter, 3 cm is 3cm.
I am not giving 'theory' I am giving the facts. If you would rather just whine cry like women over 'gondolas' be my guest but these are issues that don't apply to everyone.
Your whole 'efficiency' whine is nothing but a mask for what Dan already pointed out:
the notion of gondolas on Fs or Ks has more to do with MA, kill em quick
Isn't it about time for you to start a brand new 'where's my gondolas' thread? After all this one is 2 days old...
-
Dont worry Batz/Wotan, I dont want to open a new thread. I think two are more than enuff for everybody and I'm probably going to get a warning from the moderator soon :)
I'm not worried about what others get, actually I was one of those who asked for new mid-late Spitfires even if I fly almost only 205s and 109s. I never said almost anything about so called uber allied planes. I'm worried only about when I loose a more complete fighters like the G-10 was.
What I find irritating is your way to define everybody as a whiner. Your way to teach how good are our 109 and 190 and how close they are to the real ones. You define everyone a luftwhiner, no matter what request or whine is concerned.
Above all your way to explain things looks very poorly backed up by recent (and not recent) MA experience. Your 2005 numbers speak for you. The Main is very different from 3-4 years ago. From many points of view. And dont tell us how good have you been shooting down 10 bombers in 4 frames when you were young, please spare us! :D
-
I think there is absolutely no case for the gondolas on the Bf109F-4. As I recall it is using a 1942 boost setting, so you already have an advantage over the Spitfire MK Vbs, Hurricane Mk IIcs and P-40Es that you really shouldn't. Giving it the gondolas would add the advantage of greater firepower, other than the Hurri's, onto all the other advantages it already has.
You have a better case for gondolas on the Bf109K-4, but no case for a 20mm hub gun as no Bf109K-4 carried one. At best you would have 20mm gondolas and a 30mm hub gun with wildly different ballistics.
-
Karnak,
the 109F pods are not an issue for me. IMO, it could be if we had a 1941 scenario with light RAF bombers raids to intercept. So, really, I dont care about it. Most players were used to it becouse our F-4 has been flying quite well with pods, so they probably miss it. I touched the argument only becouse I read the trials report and the final ok on them. I agree that during 1941 the 109F-4 and the C.202 (late 1941) are more then enuff to clash with the allied fighters.
K-4 pods are an issue, IMO. Becouse in late 1944-45 scenarios, and in our late war MA, we'd need something more than our 190A-8 to intercept bombers. Obviously HTC word will be the last, however I'm only trying to provide further evidence that those Rustsatze existed and probably mounted/dismounted by ground crew.
I agree with the no 20mm option in the nose and the problem represented by the 30mm in the nose and 20mm in the wing, since the path of the two different bullets is so different that it can be more a liability than an asset. But better than nothing ... AFAIK, even FW190A-8 pilots considered the MG151-20 and the Mk108 togheter a ballistic problem.
P.S.: I forgot to mention the G-14 issue. AFAIK his FM is under review and I hope it will be more rapresentative of a 1944 109 with a more powerful engine. This could alleviate or solve the K-4 pods issue. The 30mm K-4 is an exceptional dogfighter even if demanding, the updated G-14 could be the other hi alt interceptor we need.
-
Originally posted by gatt
What I find irritating is your way to define everybody as a whiner. Your way to teach how good are our 109 and 190 and how close they are to the real ones. You define everyone a luftwhiner, no matter what request or whine is concerned.
I didn't define everyone as Luftwhiner, I fly only LW planes. The label only applies those like yourself who are actually whining. In your case about how hard it is for you to use the K-4 with out gondolas. What makes it whining is you feel the need to say it over and over again like a child wanting to be heard. Even if you were just whining about your own deficiencies with the 3cm I would have nothing to say. However, you apply you own experience universally to 'everyone'. Well there are a lot of '109 folks' who don't care about gondolas, who never use them and don't care if they are in game or not.
Above all your way to explain things looks very poorly backed up by recent (and not recent) MA experience. Your 2005 numbers speak for you. The Main is very different from 3-4 years ago. From many points of view. And dont tell us how good have you been shooting down 10 bombers in 4 frames when you were young, please spare us! :D
You don't know my 2005 'numbers' I haven't given you my current nik. Even so I don't fly much so there really aren't any numbers for me in 2005. Any numbers you see for 'Batz' or 'Wotan' in 2005 must be in error because I haven't flown under either of those names.
AH2 hasn't changed from the the early release in terms of gunnery, lethality etc... Hit resolution, icons under the plane etc... all came early. So in that sense the game hasn't changed at all in 2005.
-
the updated G-14 could be the other hi alt interceptor we need
I am not sure what you mean by 'hig altitude inteceptor' but just for FYI the G-14s FTH is only 5000m (16400ft). Right now its about 20-25 mpg to slow at FTH. Even if and when it gets fixed all the 190s will be faster and have a higher FTH then the G-14 once you get above 16k. With gondolas it wil be a real pig 'up high' (like the G-6).
-
"You're a whiner"
Why?
"Because I say you are"
Why?
"Because you're a whiner...."
circular argument.
BTW: People have been complaining about the MG151s and *especially* the 30mm since this game came out. It's been much worse since 2.0. I for one like the better gunnery model, but in 1.0 it was hard enough to land any hits with 30mm, in 2.0 it's nearly impossible.
-
Gatt,
The Bf109G-14 will hopefully get reviewed and changed, but it will not be what you want it to be even then. It's FT altitude is only 5000m (16,400ft) above which it rapidly declines to standard Bf109G-6 performance. The problem is that currently it only does 397mph at 5000m when it should do ~415mph at 5000m. This is the biggest of the issues I'd like to see addressed (the other two being the Spit VIII's poor roll rate and the black outline around Spits at medium distances).
-
From what I understand Karnak the spit8 rolled slower than other models.
The black outline thing -- we need screenshot proof. I never get a good look at spits when I'm fighting them (too busy flying/shooting to look)
-
Bruno,
please stop using terms like whiner, women, mask, child and so on. Its very tempting for me to say you are so full of it that you will explode soon.
Believe me, my patience has limits. You may have different personalities, Batz, Wotan, Cheerleader, onlygodknowswhat .... the only thing that is sure is that you dont know squat what the MA is now. How new Spitfires changed the dogfight at medium-low level and how (probably) changed gunnery since 2003.
EDIT: whos the dweeb Batz flying in 2005? Did someone steal one of your enflated personalities?
-
Krusty,
Nobody has posted any info backing that up. If it is true, then the Mk XIV needs to have it's roll rate reduced as they have the same ailerons. Angus posted something about the hinges being changed to give the Spit VIII faster aileron response, but he didn't give a source on his data.
-
Ehhh, Bruno:
"I didn't define everyone as Luftwhiner, I fly only LW planes"
You should really try the whole planeset. I recommend the C2 and the Spit VIII as well as the FM2 and the Il-2.
Anyway, it brings you to a balance to try all aircraft, and gives you a lesson how to fight them.
1 vs 1. co alt at any alt there is a tough going to beat the Spit VIII. You won't find out unless you fly one.
The C2 is a surprize, a nimble aircraft, very fast in dive and keeps maneuverability at high speed.
The FM2 is a killer in the right hands
The Il2 is underestimated and has some phenomenal qualities.....
-
Originally posted by gatt
Bruno,
please stop using terms like whiner, women, mask, child and so on. Its very tempting for me to say you are so full of it that you will explode soon.
Believe me, my patience has limits. You may have different personalities, Batz, Wotan, Cheerleader, onlygodknowswhat .... the only thing that is sure is that you dont know squat what the MA is now. How new Spitfires changed the dogfight at medium-low level and how (probably) changed gunnery since 2003.
I think Bruno's point, and I agree with it....and believe me, Bruno and I don't always agree, is that you need to think ToD on all of this. We're not talking development for the MA, the focus is ToD. Gondolas for Fs and Ks in ToD make no sense, just like 4 cannon Spit Vcs make no sense. Could they do it? Sure. But does it serve a purpose other then to provide a quick blow em up in the MA which is why guys want the gondolas just like why they want four cannon on a Spit. Why do you think the Hurri IIC shows up so much. It's not performance, other then it can turn inside Spits and has 4 cannons that make em go boom. Great for the MA....But HTC is looking at ToD.
The other thing that gets tiresome, is that if you get enough guys screaming what they think is happening, even if it isn't it starts to become truth. "Laser Hisapanos" is a favorite of mine. It's now a constant in the MA on 200. It's those "laser Hispanos" that make it unfair. That and LW guns are nerfed. I hear that all the time. There is a core of LW flyers in the MA that can be counted on to talk Allied conspiracy, HTC favors Allied planes, blah, blah, blah.
I hear it every night when I fly. The more it gets said, the more people believe it's truth.
The uber Spit XVI is another one. To be honest I flew it exclusively when it came out, and now I've moved back to the Spit IX as I can chop XVIs down without much trouble in it, even down low. It flies smoother to me. I can't seem to find the uber part of the XVI yet as much as I'd like to. Of course against the best Spit drivers it might be a different case, as I'm mediocre at best.
But again, the key here is ToD. What makes sense for ToD.
-
Eh, it is not easy to wait for TOD and in the meantime play in the MA. It is not difficult to understand ;)
Anyway, when I was referring to the new Spitfires I did not mean they are uber, I mean they are more dangerous. I use Hit&Climb and Hit&Run tactics with the K-4 and clipped wing Spitfires are dangerous indeed, while the old good MkIX usually bit the dust. About gunnery ... deflection became a more difficult art (probably more realistic) and maybe the advantage of the Hispano over the MG151-20 increased. But hey, I'm talking only about a general feeling.
P.S.: guys, your right on the G-14 issue.
-
I understand the thinking of getting planes ready for TOD. I understand that historical representations of aircraft and load-outs are of the ut-most importance for TOD. That being said wouldn't it make sense to have numerous load-outs available for the plane-sets and then limit them in TOD?
My thinking is "If it could be done in real life it should be available in the game". This goes for fuel, ammo, ord,etc. If a plane came equipped to handle a certain load-out than it should be available.
Using TOD as a reason not to include a seldom seen load-out isn't valid in my opinion since I was under the impression that the program would be picking the load-out your plane would be taking anyway. As an examble, an allied bomber pilot wouldn't be choosing what bomb load-out he is taking, the program would tell him (and the other pilots of the flight real and AI) what load-out the plane will have.
In addition rare load-outs could be available as your pilot increases experience and puts that towards a better ground crew or plane options.
But for the MA everything should be available, at least IMHO.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
,but no case for a 20mm hub gun as no Bf109K-4 carried one. At best you would have 20mm gondolas and a 30mm hub gun with wildly different ballistics.
Any source for this?
I see the above being repeated on this board.
Prien & Rodeike mention the 20mm gun for K-4. I don't have the numbers how many had them...like there aren't much certain numbers about K-4 production in general.
Anyways, 20mm cannon is listed in the most complete work done on 109s from F on wards...so far. :) Anyway, the studies done so far indicate that there were K-4s with 20mm hub cannon.
Butch2k, if you're reading this...do you happen to have any documentation regarding hub MG 151/20 in K-4s?
-
Originally posted by Vipermann
My thinking is "If it could be done in real life it should be available in the game". This goes for fuel, ammo, ord,etc. If a plane came equipped to handle a certain load-out than it should be available.
But for the MA everything should be available, at least IMHO.
Can you see the resources that would take and the whining that would ensue if that was the expectation? If it was possible it should be done.
OK so now we're talking F8Fs, P80s, Meteors, He162s, Do335s, F7Fs, etc. Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe time.
Are you going to give me those 39 different engine, wing, armament load out options for my Spitfire V?
I just don't see how that could be a realistic expectation.
-
Originally posted by gatt
Bruno,
please stop using terms like whiner, women, mask, child and so on. Its very tempting for me to say you are so full of it that you will explode soon.
I call it like it is, if that's enough to make you 'explode' then maybe you should seek come professional help.
Believe me, my patience has limits. You may have different personalities, Batz, Wotan, Cheerleader, onlygodknowswhat .... the only thing that is sure is that you dont know squat what the MA is now. How new Spitfires changed the dogfight at medium-low level and how (probably) changed gunnery since 2003.
I know exactly how the new 'Spitfires' fly, how they should fly and why. Is this now going to turn into a 'Spitfire' whine thread as well?
Whines covered so far in this thread:
- 1. HT is bias against LW planes because Ami planes have more load out options.
- 2. LW aircraft FMs need 'fixing' because planes like the FW aren't good at high alt.
- 3. Now Spitfires
Throw in your whine in the General Discussion section about ' the drop tanks and internal fuel problem' and it's easy to show how that label 'whiner' applies perfectly.
EDIT: whos the dweeb Batz flying in 2005? Did someone steal one of your enflated personalities?
'Inflated'? This coming from the guy who cries out ' personal attack' and 'impoliteness' when some one disagrees with him? How dare they...
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Can you see the resources that would take and the whining that would ensue if that was the expectation? If it was possible it should be done.
OK so now we're talking F8Fs, P80s, Meteors, He162s, Do335s, F7Fs, etc. Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe time.
Are you going to give me those 39 different engine, wing, armament load out options for my Spitfire V?
I just don't see how that could be a realistic expectation.
I don;t think I stated my position well. I'm not saying that everything that was available in WW2 needs to be in the game. I'm saying everything that was available in WW2 should be "fair game" to be added. I think a time cutoff is valid and anything after a certain point is out but things before that cutoff should be considered available to be added. Now the order in which things are added is of no concern to me although I would think that it would make good business sense from a customer happiness standpoint to have voting as to which aircraft were added.
As for your 39 load-outs perhaps that would be overkill but to limit certain loadouts simply because they were slightly rare is a mistake in my opinion. And I can't speak to the amount of coding but adding a few options to planes in game I wouldn't think woul be that time consuming.
Also I have no expectations as to this game and what should be added. I'm simply voicing my opinion that limiting load-outs based on scarcity(sp) is a mistake. As for whining, well you could have 2 planes with 1 load-out each available inthe game and people would whine about something.
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by Bruno
I call it like it is, if that's enough to make you 'explode' then maybe you should seek come professional help.
I know exactly how the new 'Spitfires' fly, how they should fly and why. Is this now going to turn into a 'Spitfire' whine thread as well?
Whines covered so far in this thread:
- 1. HT is bias against LW planes because Ami planes have more load out options.
- 2. LW aircraft FMs need 'fixing' because planes like the FW aren't good at high alt.
- 3. Now Spitfires
Throw in your whine in the General Discussion section about ' the drop tanks and internal fuel problem' and it's easy to show how that label 'whiner' applies perfectly.
'Inflated'? This coming from the guy who cries out ' personal attack' and 'impoliteness' when some one disagrees with him? How dare they... [/B]
Ok, since you are definitely an idiot you need cristal clear explanations:
1) You probably dont know how good and beautiful the new Spitfires are becouse you dont fly the arena, and if you are the Batz flying this year you are definitely a dweeb. You probably dont even know how is the new gunnery model for the same reasons.
2) This has never turned in a Spitfire whine thread becouse I like AH Spitfires and asked for the new types since long time ago.
3) I never said HT is biased against LW, never.
4) I never said that LW planes need FM fixing becouse FW dont perform well at high altitude. However, the G-14 need FM fixing. Even HT is looking at it. But you cannot know it becouse sadly your only a "forum" pilot.
5) The drop tank issue is actually a problem and is under discussion by ppl with different opinions. Only for blind cheerleaders like you everything is black or white, the world is divided into whiners and players and AH cannot be better.
6) Yes "inflated" ego. Becouse more respected ppl (with different opinion than mine) discuss here and in the drop tank thread without the inflated ego attitude you have.
Sadly, this is probably the only wording you understand. You idiot ruined and hijacked a thread about 109K-4 loadout sources and not whines. I'm sorry for other polite posters but thats all for me. The most sad thing is that you made me replying to you like an idiot myself. Now its very difficult to understand whos the real one. I hope HTC will close this thread.
-
1) You probably dont know how good and beautiful the new Spitfires are becouse you dont fly the arena, and if you are the Batz flying this year you are definitely a dweeb. You probably dont even know how is the new gunnery model for the same reasons.
Making stuff up won't deflect from your whining.
2) This has never turned in a Spitfire whine thread becouse I like AH Spitfires and asked for the new types since long time ago.
I didn't say you were whining about the 'new Spitfires'. With your reply and track record I was simple asking if Spit whining was next.
3) I never said HT is biased against LW, never.
You made several implications such as:
I am curious to see if and when allied planes will loose *important* armament loadouts (not 2x12,7mm for 4x7mm).
4) I never said that LW planes need FM fixing becouse FW dont perform well at high altitude. However, the G-14 need FM fixing. Even HT is looking at it. But you cannot know it becouse sadly your only a "forum" pilot.
I never said you did. What I said was:
Whines covered so far in this thread:
The FW whine was from your compatriot ghi.
It was partially due to my testing that the G-14 speeds will be reviewed by Pyro. Search this section of the forum or go to the bug sections and read here (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=164744).
5) The drop tank issue is actually a problem and is under discussion by ppl with different opinions. Only for blind cheerleaders like you everything is black or white, the world is divided into whiners and players and AH cannot be better.
You have no idea of my opinion on the 'dt issue'. In fact I left AH2 after HTC set the fuel modifier in the main to 2. In fact in a recent discussion about this issue in the Wishlist section, see
here (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=158846), you can get an idea of my opinion.
What you neglected to mention in your DT thread is that LW planes benefit as well from being able to take DTs with less then 100% fuel. Not any where close to the extent of Ami planes but for the LW DTs were pressurized so that as fuel was consumed from the internal tank. Fuel from the DT was forced back into the internal keeping it 'full'. Fuel flow was monitored via a transparent tube somewhere on the right-hand side of the cockpit of the 109s. No fuel visible in clear section of the tube meant the drop tank was empty. There was no way to 'switch between DTs' and internal tanks nor was there a way to know the exact amount of fuel left in the DT.
See this thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=163532
)
Selective whining by you.
6) Yes "inflated" ego. Becouse more respected ppl (with different opinion than mine) discuss here and in the drop tank thread without the inflated ego attitude you have.
In every thread (both the Gondola threads and the DT thread) when folks disagreed with you you made accusations of 'personal attacks', 'impoliteness' etc... Even now you attribute any disagreement I have with you as 'attitude'. There's a clear pattern of you playing 'victim', which I guess goes hand in hand with my comment about you 'whining like a women'.
Sadly, this is probably the only wording you understand. You idiot ruined and hijacked a thread about 109K-4 loadout sources and not whines. I'm sorry for other polite posters but thats all for me. The most sad thing is that you made me replying to you like an idiot myself.
After your multiple 'gondola' whines this was clearly apparent.
Still pissed off at me for not letting you in the FW190 discussion forum, huh?
Get over it and move on.
All the best,
What do 'you' have to do with this discussion?
Taking a break from posting your lies in those other threads to post one here?
Gripen seems to have handled most of your garbage in those threads, there is nothing more need be said by me.
-
See Rule #5
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #5
-
See Rule #2
-
stop it everyone. its boring. this is a 109k gondies thread.
-
So, want those gondies for AH?
-
Originally posted by Angus
So, want those gondies for AH?
Yep, sure. However the more I dig the more I find that many sources (like those in the first post of this thread) state the cannon pods for the K-4 as a "possible" Rustsatze.
The last source I found is a nice monography by R.Michulek (sp?):
(http://us.st2.yimg.com/store1.yimg.com/I/internethobbies_1872_11087473)
from A.J.Press, Aircraft Monograph n.17.
Even tho the R/4 modification for the K-4 is clearly listed as possible, the author says that:
- after mid 1944 those 20mm Rustsatze were very seldom mounted even on late G models (late G-6, G-14 and G-10);
- the anti buff role was assigned more and more to the 190A's;
- the 20mm pods were difficult to mount. It was something generally done in the asssembly plants and not by ground crews.