Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Widewing on April 20, 2007, 09:47:01 AM
-
When Combat Theater arrives, the Luftwaffe will be at a major disadvantage. Consider that the bombers will be flying at about 25,000 feet, which is well above the altitude where the 190s and 109s offer their best performance.
In preparation for CT, we have done extensive combat testing at altitudes between 25,000 and 30,000 feet. In short, the Focke Wulfs will be hard pressed to survive against the P-51s and P-47s, much less deal effectively with the bombers. The best handling 190, the A-5, can only manage 389 mph at 30k, 53 mph slower than the P-51B.
That said, the 109s do handle somewhat better than the 190s, but are slower still. This means that they will also be unable to compete with the Mustangs, Jugs, P-38s and Spitfires above 25k.
Last evening, Wmaker and I did some combat testing flying from a 30k field in the TA. Wmaker was flying the 109G-6, I flew the P-47D-25. It was immediately obvious that the 109 had nothing for the Jug at 30k. It was hopelessly outclassed in every respect. Only down below 20k did it have any chance. Down on the deck, the P-47D-25 was able to fight the G-6 to a draw until the Jug finally ran out of WEP. Even then, in a turning contest, the G-6 only had a small advantage, requiring about 10 level circles to gain 1/2 of a turn.
Wmaker and I agreed that all aircraft seem to turn better than they should using flaps. Some more than others. We also agreed that the 190s should turn better than they do. The Thunderbolts fly like Spitfires in comparison.
Here's some general performance numbers compiled over the past few days. Those flying for the Luftwaffe in CT will have to employ superior team tactics to have any hope at being competitive. 50% fuel for all tested. I selected aircraft in service in from June of 1943 through June of 1944.
Model: Speed @ 30k / sustained climb at 30k (rounded up, will vary with weight)
Bf 109G-2: 376 mph / 1,300 fpm
Bf 109G-6: 370 mph / 1,200 fpm
Bf 109G-14: 373 mph / 1,150 fpm
Fw 190A-5: 389 mph / 900 fpm
P-38J: 399 mph / 1,400 fpm
P-47D-11: 436 mph / 1,500 fpm
P-47D-25: 431 mph / 1,650 fpm
P-51B: 442 mph / 1,700 fpm
P-51D: 424 mph / 1,200 fpm
Spitfire IX: 403 mph / 1,700 fpm
My regards,
Widewing
-
I know the very high-alt missions pushed 25k and 27k, but wasn't it more common to have bombers at about 20k?
Maybe HTC will have them a little lower for this first TOD?
It doesn't seem like much of a difference, but for the LW it would mean life instead of death (or, should I say, "a fighting chance"?)
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Those flying for the Luftwaffe in CT will have to employ superior team tactics to have any hope at being competitive.
This mirrors reality. It has the potential for killing the CT, though, if CT assumes that someone needs to fly for the Germans.
...er...are you thinking of testing the A8...?
- oldman
-
Thanks for sharing those numbers :)
I really hope there will be some kind of redeeming game incentives to play on the Luftwaffe side.
The planes will suck in comparison, perhaps not as bad as we might think (speaking from past scenario experience the LW side usually performs better than raw plane data would indicate), but enough to impose a serious penalty on LW players.
WW2 wasnt fair, and i think the historical strengths and weaknesses in the CT planeset are as good as they get, but as a future game somehow 8thAF vs. LW needs to be "fair" in order to be a worthwhile past time.
Let's hope they can pull something magical out of their hat and preserve both historical accuracy and enjoyable gameplay.
-
As someone who usually flies Axis in FSO, this is not news. Yeah... Allied planes handle much better. And it's not just a numbers comparison thing, either... unless you have some numbers to explain why the 190s flip over on their back at the slightest hint of a control input. Or what makes the 109 slats seem to slap out asymmetrically.
-
I find it funny that the Bpony is better then the Dpony at that alt.
I don't care if the fighers out performs my 109 all I want to do is dive into 50+ formations of buffs and see if I can come out alive. If I remember right didnt the LW get as many bombers they could then run to the deck when fighters came close?
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I know the very high-alt missions pushed 25k and 27k, but wasn't it more common to have bombers at about 20k?
Maybe HTC will have them a little lower for this first TOD?
It doesn't seem like much of a difference, but for the LW it would mean life instead of death (or, should I say, "a fighting chance"?)
Typically, the B-17s flew between between 24k and 27k, with the B-24s down between 22k and 24k. This means that the fighter escorts will be higher. In general, the escorts were assigned altitudes from 20,000 to 35,000 feet depending on the mission plan and the bomber type being escorted.
I would not rule out the use of medium bombers or medium level missions by heavy bombers (most often against targets in France and the low countries).
Those flying Luftwaffe will have their chances, but against heavy bombers at high altitude, they will have a difficult time of it.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Wmaker and I agreed that all aircraft seem to turn better than they should using flaps. Some more than others. We also agreed that the 190s should turn better than they do. The Thunderbolts fly like Spitfires in comparison.
Amen to that.
Wmaker might also have mentioned that the 109s we have currently are actually a vast improvement over the older 109 versions - the ever-so-slight raise in flap deployment speeds had an incredibly benign effect when it came to combat maneuvering. There are still some harsh rudder+flap maneuvers the US planes can do, which the LW planes are hard pressed to match, but still, compared to previous incarnations of the 109 that small raise in flap speed did wonders.
This is especially evident when the fight enters a series of semi-loops with hard ruddering - whereas the US planes can keep their flaps down over 250mph, and maintain a tight looping radius, planes like the 109 or the 190 would lose serious ground while the plane entered donwards flight towards the ground. The plane would accelerate, flaps would retract, and the plane loses ground with every semi-loop that occurs until finally the US plane lands behind the 109 or the 190.
Fortunately, if the speed can be contained at 200mph IAS max, the 109 can still maintain first notch of flaps nowadays. Thank god for that..
-
Kweassa,
Originally posted by Kweassa
Wmaker might also have mentioned that the 109s we have currently are actually a vast improvement over the older 109 versions - the ever-so-slight raise in flap deployment speeds had an incredibly benign effect when it came to combat maneuvering.
While I do agree the flaps are better now that they can be lowered at 200mph, I disagree as to them being the reason 109s handle better.
109s handle better since the airflow re-coding, and since the 109 model revamp. Before this, the 109s and especially 190s suffered greatly in many ways, including snap stalls if you flew at speeds below 200mph (even gentle turns produced rapid alternating wing dips in 190s). It was a bad flight model, in regards to how air flowed over the wings.
When they changed the code to recompute things, it removed these buggy flight profiles, and I think that was the single largest benefit the 190s/109s have ever had in this game.
The flaps are definitely nice, but IMO I don't use them that much in a dogfight. I don't need to, now that I can fly around without wobbling like a fish on a spear.
-
Originally posted by Larry
I find it funny that the Bpony is better then the Dpony at that alt.
I don't care if the fighers out performs my 109 all I want to do is dive into 50+ formations of buffs and see if I can come out alive. If I remember right didnt the LW get as many bombers they could then run to the deck when fighters came close?
At high altitude, the P-51B excels due to having a supercharger designed for that altitude. In comparison, the P-51D is more of a compromise, with a supercharger that provides for max speed at 25k (where it can do 441 mph in AH2). Be advised that the P-51B loses almost 40 mph at 30k if not using WEP. However, the P-51D shows no increase in MAP with WEP at 30k, meaning that its 424 mph can be sustained for as long as it has fuel. This is one of several reasons why the P-51D is so deadly. Another reason is that it retains speed better than any other fighter (much better). This is because it has the lowest drag coefficient by a wide margin.
As I see it, if you dive to far away from the escorts, it will be very difficult to climb back up and get at the bombers. To be successful, all the escorts need do is force the German fighters to dive. They need not follow.
Another thing to keep in mind is that when the ETO gets to 1945, the P-47N could be substituted for the P-47M... At 30k, the P-47N is 103 mph faster than the Bf 109G-14 and climbs at 1,900 fpm. This performance is much better that of the 109K-4 and Ta 152 (at 30k).... Fortunately, only three squadrons were flying the mighty M model. Should HTC ever model the M model.... Well, it will cause much angst for those facing it up high (expect 480 mph+ and well over 2k per minute climb at 30k).
My regards,
Widewing
-
Couple of comments:
1. Historically, after the possible fight the Allied escorts needed to fly back all the way back to England from over the Germany, which means that they must usually have had close to full internal fuel when the fight started. LW fighters needed only enough to land to airfields below them.
2. Anybody who has participated in squadops or snapshots simulating 8.AF vs LW knows that turning performance is not very important. That is because the mutual support of the wingmen and the necessity to protect the bombers makes lengthy 1 vs 1 fights unlikely. Speed, climb and firepower is what you need.
-
which is why the P47 owns @30k. ;)
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Another thing to keep in mind is that when the ETO gets to 1945, the P-47N could be substituted for the P-47M... At 30k, the P-47N is 103 mph faster than the Bf 109G-14 and climbs at 1,900 fpm. This performance is much better that of the 109K-4 and Ta 152 (at 30k).... Fortunately, only three squadrons were flying the mighty M model. Should HTC ever model the M model.... Well, it will cause much angst for those facing it up high (expect 480 mph+ and well over 2k per minute climb at 30k).
My regards,
Widewing
If the ETO gets to 1945 the LW will have the 109K which outperforms the P-47N in all regimes of flight at and below 25k. Also the LW will have the Me 262 (since mid-1944 in fact).
-
Originally posted by leitwolf
Thanks for sharing those numbers :)
I really hope there will be some kind of redeeming game incentives to play on the Luftwaffe side.
.
As far as I know, in CT you can improve your pilot's characteristics over the time.
Now if a German pilot is shot down, he can bail over friendly territory, an allied pilot hower would be captured most of the time. So if proper implemented, a player on the allied side would have to be much more careful. If he's shot down, he loses all that points, experience and bonus traits of that pilot. The German pilot can just reup the next plane.
-
Will the bomber able to inflict real damage at 27K ?
-
Straffo, have you seen the targets for CT? They posted screenshots. Miles and miles of city, including residential and industrial areas. The point is carpet bombing, from hundreds of bombers all at once. That means you need a target large enough to carpet bomb! The objective will be a % of the total target (i.e. "You need to bomb 60% for a win")
-
How many high-alt versions of the Bf 109 are available?
Those started to appear in spring/summer 1944 with G-5/AS and G-6/AS to be followed by the G-14/AS in autumn 1944 (basically a G-6/AS with MW-50). Then there are the G-10 and K-4.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Straffo, have you seen the targets for CT? They posted screenshots. Miles and miles of city, including residential and industrial areas. The point is carpet bombing, from hundreds of bombers all at once. That means you need a target large enough to carpet bomb! The objective will be a % of the total target (i.e. "You need to bomb 60% for a win")
PICS WHERE WHERE!!!
-
Oh, that's right.. You've been gone for ages...
Well, screenshots of the airfields here:
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=186231
Screenshots of some of the strat items can be seen here:
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=186232
I thought there were some more detailed photos of the main target (close up of the industrial areas) but I can't find them right now.
-
Yea Iv been under a rock for more then a year last tme I was here it was called YoD and was coming out in two weeks:aok
-
Hey Krusty, nice to see you again :)
Those airfields really look awesome, I've seen the 'targets', but not the airfields yet, just awesome :D
-
heh, I'm everywhere, it seems. Hard to miss me! :D
-
Originally posted by Viking
If the ETO gets to 1945 the LW will have the 109K which outperforms the P-47N in all regimes of flight at and below 25k. Also the LW will have the Me 262 (since mid-1944 in fact).
No, the Bf 109K-4 does not outperform the P-47N at 25k.
Model: Speed / Climb
At 25k
P-47N: 457 mph / 3,020 fpm
109K-4: 445 mph / 2,870 fpm
At 30k
P-47N: 475 mph / 2,490 fpm
109K-4: 430 mph / 1,980 fpm
You have to got down to 23.5k to have roughly equal performance. At 22k, the 109 is faster, but that's very close to its FTH.
At 22k
P-47N: 446 mph
109K-4: 451 mph
If HTC goes for realism, the Americans and Brits will have 150 octane avgas in the early autumn of 1944.
My regards,
Widewing
-
If this were real life your words would be Gospel Widewing.
However for most players the aircraft performance won't even enter the picture. It'll be the classic case of "it's the pilot, not the plane."
IMO most will not have the discipline nor fear of death that real WWII pilots had. Many will not take the time to set themselves up for an attack on the bombers and will fall to the rear turret gunner as they climb slowly off their six or fall prey to any covering fighters.
Conversely there'll be scores of over-eager escort pilots who will go screaming down in groups to chase the first LW fighter(s) that comes zipping on by or is seen itself lower than they are. They'll leave the bombers severely under-protected.
Just like scenarios. It should be fun :)
(if it ever comes out :( )
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I thought there were some more detailed photos of the main target (close up of the industrial areas) but I can't find them right now.
Following the link on the front page...
http://www.hitechcreations.com/ct/ctframe.html
Or without the frame
http://www.hitechcreations.com/ct/about.html
-
Sweet! Thanks OOZ, I thought they were on the forums, didn't check the front page!
TK, here's what I wanted to show ya, though. THIS sums up what TOD is about rather well.
(http://downloads.hitechcreations.com/images/combattour/ctcity0.jpg)
-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It looks like drier lint, but it's buildings.
-
Unfortunately, they changed all the terrain tiles now :cry
Won't look nearly that good on solid green.
-
Oh yea. If we had those citys in MA the scorepotato toolsheaders would wet thier paints.
And I'm not talking about pee:D
-
Disagree with the premise.
You are talking as if the Air War didnt develop at all.
Allied fighters will start out with no P-51, only P-38s and P-47s. They have fuel issues as well, where defending fighters can last longer at full power on the defensive near friendly bases.
The LW does get later varients of the 109 and 190 as the war progresses, 109D-9, 109G-14 and 109K-4 all come into service vs the P-51s summer-fall, 1944.
Bomber alts will be between 18k-25k I would think, depending, not always at 25k.
I see it as a rather balanced field actually. Both sets are competative, you can argue the fine points (and they have been argued over for decades) but the bottom line is that no one side will have super-duper a/c vs POS a/c on the other.
...so relax. :aok
-
I was watching "Wings" one day, and a P-51D pilot was talking about BF-109s being way above them (30,000+) as they were escorting bombers. He said these were special high-alt equipped 109s, and that they had much better performance than the P-51s at such altitudes.
Any idea to what type of BF-109 he was referring to?
-
Originally posted by Squire
Disagree with the premise.
You are talking as if the Air War didnt develop at all.
Allied fighters will start out with no P-51, only P-38s and P-47s. They have fuel issues as well, where defending fighters can last longer at full power on the defensive near friendly bases.
The LW does get later varients of the 109 and 190 as the war progresses, 109D-9, 109G-14 and 109K-4 all come into service vs the P-51s summer-fall, 1944.
Bomber alts will be between 18k-25k I would think, depending, not always at 25k.
I see it as a rather balanced field actually. Both sets are competative, you can argue the fine points (and they have been argued over for decades) but the bottom line is that no one side will have super-duper a/c vs POS a/c on the other.
...so relax. :aok
Only the P-47 has fuel issues, the P-38 has PLENTY of range, as it has good fuel efficiency and plenty of drop tanks. The ONLY reason the P-38's ever suffered from a lack of range is because the pilots were not taught proper fuel management, and were wasting fuel and blowing engines until Lockheed sent Tony Levier to show them what was wrong. After proper instruction, guys who had been coming back with a tea cups of fuel left were coming back with a hundred gallons. It has been said that a lot of P-38's may have been lost because they hung around and fought when the pilots figured out they were going to have to ditch and be captured anyway.
-
Bomber streams rtb, escort fighter groups rtb, no a/c had enough gas to fly at full power forever.
...even P-38s had to rtb at some point. Either fuel or tactical issues that come up.
My point is that defending fighter always have a "home court" advantage as they are over firendly territory, much nearer bases they can land at short of fuel, or battle damaged, or both.
And I will point out that max ranges are based on optimum cruise settings, not combat. Fuel is always a concern, even for "long range" fighters.
-
Originally posted by Squire
Disagree with the premise.
You are talking as if the Air War didnt develop at all.
Allied fighters will start out with no P-51, only P-38s and P-47s. They have fuel issues as well, where defending fighters can last longer at full power on the defensive near friendly bases.
The LW does get later varients of the 109 and 190 as the war progresses, 109D-9, 109G-14 and 109K-4 all come into service vs the P-51s summer-fall, 1944.
I see it as a rather balanced field actually. Both sets are competative, you can argue the fine points (and they have been argued over for decades) but the bottom line is that no one side will have super-duper a/c vs POS a/c on the other.
...so relax. :aok
It isn't a premise, nor a theory or even an opinion.
Don't believe me? Tell ya what, I'll fly any US fighter of 1943 vintage; P-38J, P-47D-11 or P-51B. You take a Dora or a 109G-14. We can take off from field A3 of the TA map (30k base). We can then play a bit.... You will be horrified at the beating the Dora will take.
Then you should consider how the 109G-6 or 190A-8 will do.
My regards,
Widewing
-
You don't fly a mission at 100% military power. A mission profile has power settings and time frames calculated. In the beginning, a mission profile had about 5 minutes of WEP figured in, because they weren't getting the range they should have.
You are correct, the Luftwaffe will have the home field advantage. As they should.
However, I doubt fuel will be the consideration you would assume.
-
As long as the bombers fly at cruise and not 100% power I will be happy. :D
BoB shows how fun it is chasing bombers around at 100% power ;)
-
Originally posted by Widewing
No, the Bf 109K-4 does not outperform the P-47N at 25k.
Model: Speed / Climb
At 25k
P-47N: 457 mph / 3,020 fpm
109K-4: 445 mph / 2,870 fpm
At 30k
P-47N: 475 mph / 2,490 fpm
109K-4: 430 mph / 1,980 fpm
You have to got down to 23.5k to have roughly equal performance. At 22k, the 109 is faster, but that's very close to its FTH.
At 22k
P-47N: 446 mph
109K-4: 451 mph
If HTC goes for realism, the Americans and Brits will have 150 octane avgas in the early autumn of 1944.
My regards,
Widewing
According to GonZo’s fighter comparisons (I believe you have contributed with some data):
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/1022_1177113726_p-47nvs109k1.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/1022_1177113738_p-47nvs109k2.jpg)
Unlike the numbers you now present you can see that the 109K out climbs the P-47N at all altitudes, and are equal or very close to equal in speed at 25k.
-
Seems to me you have accidentally switched the climb numbers.
-
Originally posted by Viking
According to GonZo’s fighter comparisons (I believe you have contributed with some data)
Unlike the numbers you now present you can see that the 109K out climbs the P-47N at all altitudes, and are equal or very close to equal in speed at 25k.
He doesn't use actual test data for some aircraft. He uses the HTC charts for the P-47N, which reflect max takeoff weight.
I used 267 rounds per gun (standard USAAF ammo load) for the P-47N.
The charted numbers for the 109K-4 reflect 25% fuel. I tested using 30 minutes of fuel. I take off, adjust fuel burn to burn quickly down to 30 minutes endurance at max power, then set burn to zero. 25% fuel provides exactly 30 minutes duration for the P-47N (based upon E6B at a burn rate of 1.0). The 109K-4 requires about 40% fuel to fly 30 minutes at max power (E6B).
One can argue that the Allied fighters will be carrying considerably more than this in CT. However, as a basis for equal testing, 30 minutes is sound.
In addition, I tested acceleration from 200 mph IAS to 250 mph IAS (329 mph TAS to 410 mph TAS) at 25k and 30k.
I record time required to accelerate from 200 IAS to 250 IAS.
At 25K
P-47N: 42.22 seconds
109K-4: 46.94 seconds
At 30k
P-47N: 1:02.32
109K-4: 2:01.34
At 30k, the P-47N runs away from the 109K like the Messerschmitt was tied to a tree.
My regards,
Widewing
-
never mess with Widewing:cry
-
303rd Bomb Group Mission Reports (http://www.303rdbg.com/missions.html)
Actual mission reports from the 303rd Bomb Group, B-17's.
I think if you check you'll find most bombing done from the mid-20's and higher, on up to 29K.
Not that many in the low 20's, usually the shorter ones to St. Nazaire and the like. The farther the target, the more likely to be above 25K.
364 mission reports; enjoy.
It would seem if that if you want to emulate the real thing in TOD, these mission reports would be a fine reference for planning.
-
http://www.llv32.org/filmit/WWWM1.ahf
http://www.llv32.org/filmit/WWWM2.ahf
Here are the films of the engagements...there are two things that are strikingly evident...WideWing is an excellent pilot and I had had fifteen (15) beers. :)
So it is painfully obvious that the 109 can be flown A LOT better than I did. As anyone can see I didn't use the flaps at places where I should have used them.
Just, one more comment, kweassa is 100% correct on the fact that 109s became better with the last flight modelling change and quite frankly I don't think that 109s turn too slow but the opposing fighters turn too well IMO. It is all down to the modelling of the lift coefficient when using flaps IMO.
I'll try to read this thread tomorrow (today :)) and then comment further.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
One can argue that the Allied fighters will be carrying considerably more than this in CT. However, as a basis for equal testing, 30 minutes is sound.
That’s a fallacy my friend as the purpose of these threads of yours is to test the actual environment we will be playing in CT. The Allied fighters should be tested at 75% fuel or more (most allied fighters were still flying on drop tanks over Germany), and the LW at 50% without drop tanks, and 75% or more if drop tanks have been used.
Another factor you’ve not taken into consideration is the 109K’s superiority at MIL power, and the 109 has twice the P-47’s WEP. At MIL power the 109 is faster than the 47N at 30K.
-
Originally posted by Viking
That’s a fallacy my friend as the purpose of these threads of yours is to test the actual environment we will be playing in CT. The Allied fighters should be tested at 75% fuel or more (most allied fighters were still flying on drop tanks over Germany), and the LW at 50% without drop tanks, and 75% or more if drop tanks have been used.
Another factor you’ve not taken into consideration is the 109K’s superiority at MIL power, and the 109 has twice the P-47’s WEP. At MIL power the 109 is faster than the 47N at 30K.
You stated, "If the ETO gets to 1945 the LW will have the 109K which outperforms the P-47N in all regimes of flight at and below 25k."
I responded by posting data that showed that this was untrue. I compared max performance based and eliminated a variable, thus establishing greater accuracy.
Had P-47Ns been deployed to the ETO, they could have flown from Britain to Berlin WITHOUT drop tanks and still have a 45 minute reserve. Being a 1945 fighter, they would have been based in eastern France or Belgium. Thus, they would rarely fly with more than 350 gallons (full internal fuel is 556 gallons). Therefore, I would argue that you would likely never encounter a P-47N with more than 50% fuel. Indeed, the P-47N could fly 1,700 miles on internal fuel, including warm-up, climb-out to 25k, cruise to target, 5 minutes in WEP, 15 minutes at MIL power, cruise back and still have 30 minutes of reserve fuel. It could fly over 400 miles on 25% fuel, or from Berlin to Manston. So, you could certainly encounter a P-47N over Germany with much less than 50% fuel.
As to speed, you are incorrect. The P-47N can attain 434 mph in MIL power at 30k. That's faster than the 109K can manage in WEP. At MIL power, the 109K can do 421 mph at 30k. Test both yourself, I have no corner on the testing market. Anyone with the software can confirm my data.
Oh, by the way, the P-47D-40 is also faster than the 109K using just MIL power (431 mph) and faster yet in WEP (436 mph) and with 50% fuel is its equal in climb rate up there. All of the P-47s are faster than the 109K at 30k.
If you wish, come to the TA one evening and we can compare the two in combat. You may be shocked to discover that the P-47D-40 actually has a smaller turn radius at 30k than the 109K (about dead equal to the 109G-6). Up that high, the 109K has no advantage in climb and is slightly slower. It falls way behind in acceleration as well. Plus, the P-47s can start getting flaps out at 400 mph.
Within the context of Combat Tour, I hope that the mission generator air spawns the Luftwaffe fighters high enough to allow them a reasonable chance to carry some speed into the fight. While the 109K-4 is reasonably competitive with the Allied fighters, the Dora is at best marginal (410 mph @ 30k, with a climb rate of just 1,050 fpm) and the rest of the 109s and 190s are outclassed in terms of speed. Without some altitude to trade for speed, the lesser fighters will be bounced continuously.
If you watched Wmaker's films, you saw that the P-47D was much faster than the 109G-6. To the extent that I could have simply BnZ'd the 109 all day. But, it was far more fun to follow the 109 down and mix it up. The Jug lost equality down low when it ran out of WEP.
Another interesting thing about combat at 25k to 30k is that a turn radius that measures 700 feet at sea level, exceeds 2,000 feet up high. Thus, you will not see the close dogfights you see on the deck. Up high, excess power is what ultimately determines agility.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Straffo, have you seen the targets for CT? They posted screenshots. Miles and miles of city, including residential and industrial areas. The point is carpet bombing, from hundreds of bombers all at once. That means you need a target large enough to carpet bomb! The objective will be a % of the total target (i.e. "You need to bomb 60% for a win")
Well I expect the bomber briefing to be not like :
- bomb within 10km of the powerplant area.
or :)
- bomb germany.
Don't forget IRL the bomber where not precise ,I hope they won't use laser bombs in CT !
-
Another thing to consider might be the victory condition for the Luftwaffe.
The 8th AF time-frame depicted in the Combat Tour, is a part of a bigger war. If it is like anything I'm imagining, where the CT is a mission-oriented, realistic role-playing game which flow of action is more coherent with real-life, then the 109s in their escort role and the 190s in the intercept role, do not necessarily have to engage the US forces to shoot them all down.
IIRC, typically a 10% loss inflicted to a mass bomber stream would be considered an "unacceptably high loss" for the USAAF. If a mission spawns with 100 bombers inbound with 32 US escorts, the Luftwaffe counteraction would probably spawn with multiple interception attempts all along the way.
Something like 8x 109s and 16x 190s will hit the bomber stream for no more than 15 minutes, where the 190s may get perhaps one or two passes into the bomber stream and shoot maybe 2~3 of the bombers down. Then this mission expires, and the 109s and 190s will run low and home. The escorts will not be able to follow them, since they are given a duty as close escort, and after some time, another squadron of the LW will merge with the bomber stream and attempt another interception.
It's not as if the 109s and 190s will be given a mission order to shoot all 100 buffs and 32 escorts down. Naturally, knowing the disadvantages in the high-alt theater, the 109 and 190 pilots will do all they can to make the interception attempt as short as possible, chipping off only one side of the bomber stream with 3~4 buffs, and then turning back and disengaging as soon as possible to avoid the onslaught from the US planes. Multiple "chipping" will happen with multiple attempts by multiple teams, and if the LW can bring down something like 20 of those 100 buffs, then the whole mission is a success. The 32 US escorts may not have lost a single P-51 or a P-47 and yet, they still lose.
The CT is not the MA. It's not the realm where win/loss is determined by which planes you've individually shot down. Each side is given a duty to accomplish the mission, and no matter how flashy and skilled you are, if your side fails the mission then its over.
-
I believe the Ta-152 is too late-war to join?
It would come in handy for the Luftwaffe, it's excellent for attacking bombers (which what is was designed for)
And scores some nice speeds at 30k :)
-
I don't know much about TOD but it seems odd to state that the U.S. fighters will be confined to close escort.
If TOD is set up anything like the reality of WW II, then Mustangs and Thunderbolts will have the numbers to conduct search-and-destroy missions....harassing the luftwaffe pilots at their bases and in the climb-outs on interception of American bombers.
How WILL TOD be set up in that regard? Will the numbers be set up as they were in real life....or will they be skewed toward parity?
Regards, Shuckins
-
I'm hoping for parity, for life was made extremely difficult for the LW pilots.
Wouldn't be much fun to be vulched every time you upped, that would even take away the fun for the bomber pilots, hoping for a nice encounter at altitude.
-
Its gonna be difficult for us luftweeines, but all the more rewarding when you finally get a kill. Im guessing the easyer side (us/uk) will attract higher numbers because it will be easy but who cares. In MA a ton choose easy rides too, but i dont play to get the maximum ammount of kills.
:)
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
I don't know much about TOD but it seems odd to state that the U.S. fighters will be confined to close escort.
If TOD is set up anything like the reality of WW II, then Mustangs and Thunderbolts will have the numbers to conduct search-and-destroy missions....harassing the luftwaffe pilots at their bases and in the climb-outs on interception of American bombers.
How WILL TOD be set up in that regard? Will the numbers be set up as they were in real life....or will they be skewed toward parity?
Regards, Shuckins
Between May of 1943 and January of the 1944, the 8th AF SOP was close escort. The fighters were assigned the job of escorting the bombers, not chasing the Luftwaffe into their holes. There were some fighter groups that were allowed to forge ahead of the bombers and attempt to break up the assembly of German fighter formations. However, the bulk of the fighter groups were within visual range of there assigned bomber groups. So, if HTC has done their homework, there will be no strafing of Luftwaffe fighter fields until after January of 1944.
That was when Doolittle took over command of the 8th AF. He changed Fighter Command's (code name Widewing) SOP from bomber escort to "the total destruction of the Luftwaffe." As the 8th AF rapidly replaced P-47s with P-51s and new Mustang groups arrived, things got very dicey for the Germans. Fighter groups having finished their assigned leg of the mission hurtled down to the deck and attacked any German aircraft and airfields they could find. Special tactics were developed specifically for this task. By June of 1944, the Luftwaffe forces remaining in France were classified as "combat ineffective" by the Allies. Those remaining to defend the Reich were not in much better shape.
If scripted correctly, the Luftwaffe will not have to fear their bases being swarmed until after January of 1944. Between May and November of 1943, escorts will have limited range, no greater than about 50 miles beyond Germany's western Frontier. So, bombers on deep penetration missions will be without escort for a significant amount of time. From November of 1943 on, an increasing number of escorts (P-38s and P-51s) will be taking the bombers deep into Germany. The first American fighter groups to reach Berlin (early March of 1944) were the P-38s of the 55th and 20th FGs, followed the next day by the P-51 groups.
I'm hoping that HTC sticks to the historical reality and does not place emphasis on parity. You want parity, you can fly in the AvA arena where plane sets are matched for game play. A history based simulation that strives for parity will fail.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
I responded by posting data that showed that this was untrue. I compared max performance based and eliminated a variable, thus establishing greater accuracy.
Ok, I concede the point.
Originally posted by Widewing
Had P-47Ns been deployed to the ETO, they could have flown from Britain to Berlin WITHOUT drop tanks and still have a 45 minute reserve. Being a 1945 fighter, they would have been based in eastern France or Belgium. Thus, they would rarely fly with more than 350 gallons (full internal fuel is 556 gallons). Therefore, I would argue that you would likely never encounter a P-47N with more than 50% fuel. Indeed, the P-47N could fly 1,700 miles on internal fuel, including warm-up, climb-out to 25k, cruise to target, 5 minutes in WEP, 15 minutes at MIL power, cruise back and still have 30 minutes of reserve fuel. It could fly over 400 miles on 25% fuel, or from Berlin to Manston. So, you could certainly encounter a P-47N over Germany with much less than 50% fuel.
That’s very impressive.
Originally posted by Widewing
If you wish, come to the TA one evening and we can compare the two in combat. You may be shocked to discover that the P-47D-40 actually has a smaller turn radius at 30k than the 109K (about dead equal to the 109G-6). Up that high, the 109K has no advantage in climb and is slightly slower. It falls way behind in acceleration as well. Plus, the P-47s can start getting flaps out at 400 mph.
Thanks, but no thanks. While I find people wanting to duel high on skill, I sadly also find them low on sportsmanship. Not saying this includes you, but after dueling Sky Rock and being badmouthed (which even spilled over to the bbs) I vowed never to duel anyone again.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Another thing to consider might be the victory condition for the Luftwaffe.
The 8th AF time-frame depicted in the Combat Tour, is a part of a bigger war. If it is like anything I'm imagining, where the CT is a mission-oriented, realistic role-playing game which flow of action is more coherent with real-life, then the 109s in their escort role and the 190s in the intercept role, do not necessarily have to engage the US forces to shoot them all down.
IIRC, typically a 10% loss inflicted to a mass bomber stream would be considered an "unacceptably high loss" for the USAAF. If a mission spawns with 100 bombers inbound with 32 US escorts, the Luftwaffe counteraction would probably spawn with multiple interception attempts all along the way.
Something like 8x 109s and 16x 190s will hit the bomber stream for no more than 15 minutes, where the 190s may get perhaps one or two passes into the bomber stream and shoot maybe 2~3 of the bombers down. Then this mission expires, and the 109s and 190s will run low and home. The escorts will not be able to follow them, since they are given a duty as close escort, and after some time, another squadron of the LW will merge with the bomber stream and attempt another interception.
It's not as if the 109s and 190s will be given a mission order to shoot all 100 buffs and 32 escorts down. Naturally, knowing the disadvantages in the high-alt theater, the 109 and 190 pilots will do all they can to make the interception attempt as short as possible, chipping off only one side of the bomber stream with 3~4 buffs, and then turning back and disengaging as soon as possible to avoid the onslaught from the US planes. Multiple "chipping" will happen with multiple attempts by multiple teams, and if the LW can bring down something like 20 of those 100 buffs, then the whole mission is a success. The 32 US escorts may not have lost a single P-51 or a P-47 and yet, they still lose.
The CT is not the MA. It's not the realm where win/loss is determined by which planes you've individually shot down. Each side is given a duty to accomplish the mission, and no matter how flashy and skilled you are, if your side fails the mission then its over.
Also unlike in the MA you don’t have to shoot the bombers to pieces to stop them from reaching their target, you just have to hit the oil on two engines, or a pair of fuel tanks. And if a bomber is separated from the box it is doomed.
-
For Fw-190A-8 to fight at hi alt vs the USAAF, 190A-8 needs GM-1 fuel option modeled. I think we also need 109G-6/AS (high alt 109G-6 variant) just like the ones modeled in IL-2FB
-
Originally posted by Viking
Thanks, but no thanks. While I find people wanting to duel high on skill, I sadly also find them low on sportsmanship. Not saying this includes you, but after dueling Sky Rock and being badmouthed (which even spilled over to the bbs) I vowed never to duel anyone again.
You never have to worry about that... My job is to teach and encourage people, not rag on them. Besides, it's not a duel, it's familiarization training. No expectations, no smack talk, just an opportunity to fly and have fun and learn something about the aircraft and the flight model.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
I was watching "Wings" one day, and a P-51D pilot was talking about BF-109s being way above them (30,000+) as they were escorting bombers. He said these were special high-alt equipped 109s, and that they had much better performance than the P-51s at such altitudes.
Any idea to what type of BF-109 he was referring to?
The LW had No2{ nitrixoxide}[sp] in several A/C 110's,109's 190's and I beleive the 410 was also equiped with this.
Now if this was modeled the LW A/C might fair abit better:aok
I think this is the GM-1 spoken of...... by 1K3:aok
-
Originally posted by morfiend
The LW had No2{ nitrixoxide}[sp] in several A/C 110's,109's 190's and I beleive the 410 was also equiped with this.
Now if this was modeled the LW A/C might fair abit better:aok
I think this is the GM-1 spoken of...... by 1K3:aok
I think we should have GM1 and MW50 power ups for 190A-8 ONLY as bonus if you scored good enough. The allies can have their 150 octane fuel used on their fighter planes (p51/47/38, spits, temps, mosqs,) if they scored good enough:aok
-
Originally posted by 1K3
I think we also need 109G-6/AS (high alt 109G-6 variant)
The AS versions of the 109 would definitely be useful for combat tour. They'll probably still be inferior to the P-47s and P-51s at high altitudes, but every little bit helps.
Here are the approximate operational dates for various late war 109s taken from a post by Knegel in this thread:
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=194384
G6 (1943)
G6AS (May 44)
G6/R2 (May 44)
G14 (July 44)
G14AS (August 44)
K4/G10 (October 44)
-
In case ppl don’t know what the various German abbreviations are:
AS = Bigger supercharger giving better performance at high altitude.
MW50 = Water injection mixed with 50% alcohol as an anti-freeze. Allows for higher manifold pressure without detonation/over-boosting and cools the cylinder heads. However MW50 injection is only effective if the supercharger/turbo has surplus capacity(i.e. below full-throttle height).
GM1 = Nitrous-oxide (an oxygen carrier/oxidizer) injection. GM1 was used at high altitudes to improve performance (where the supercharger couldn’t feed enough air to the engine).
C3 = High-octane synthetic aviation fuel. Roughly equivalent to US/UK 130 or 150 octane fuel (depending on timeframe). Also used as a coolant injection on 190s (almost as MW50). All radial engine 190s used C3.
B4 = A lower quality synthetic fuel roughly equal to 100 octane US/UK fuel. Most 109s used B4 except special units (like the high-altitude scouts and escorts).
AS and GM1 equipped 109s were used as high-altitude recognizance planes (to scout out allied bomber streams and escorts), and as escorts for the bomber interceptors. These escorts would engage the allied escort fighters trying to keep them from interfering with the bomber interceptors. When it worked (it took a lot of coordination) it was deadly. This is also the reason why the allied fighters started scouting ahead of the bomber streams to try to interfere with the forming of such LW formations.
In Aces High as it is now we have no AS equipped 109s, and no GM1 equipped 109s/190s and no C3 fuel for the 109s. The Ta152 is the only GM1 equipped plane modeled.
Hopefully this will change with CT.
-
Even if they do give the Allied aircraft the 150 octane fuel, it won't do the P-38's any good. They have the P-38L modeled at the standard USAAF downrating of the -30 Allisons, which doesn't even push the limits of the standard fuel. For the P-38L to take advantage of 150 octane fuel, they'd have to allow the Lockheed Allison ratings, and the P-38L will exceed 442MPH. That'll never happen. Not 78"+ of manifold pressure and 3200RPM.
-
No, but the 51s would benefit greatly from the +22.something boost.
-
who would ever want to take the P38 at very high alts.............
-
Originally posted by Widewing
You never have to worry about that... My job is to teach and encourage people, not rag on them. Besides, it's not a duel, it's familiarization training. No expectations, no smack talk, just an opportunity to fly and have fun and learn something about the aircraft and the flight model.
My regards,
Widewing
I've gone into the dueling area with Widewing before, and he is very courteous and a nice person -- an asset to the Aces High community.
-
I have no doubt. :)
-
The 2 Luftwaffe main fighters had both their superchargers set for the altitude at which combat was most likely to take place. It wasn't at 30k. It is true that the LW desired to improve high altitude performance but this wasn't so they could 'dogfight' at 30k.
Despite the myths in this thread and the ones in the CT forums not all bombers flew at 'high altitudes'. Bomber boxes were stacked up high, mid, low and then the bomber streams were strung out sometimes over hundreds of miles. They came into target at staggered at heights and directions to confuse German FLAK gunners. Some really low, some much higher.
The LW had radar, they had ground observers. they had a command and control system that allowed the lesser defended areas of the bomber streams to be identified and attacked. Even very late in the war LW fighters were able to engage and destroy large numbers of bombers.
The quest by the LW to improve high altitude performance wasn't due solely on 'high altitude combat'. It was to get their smaller number of fighters up higher, or co-altitude, so that if engage by superior allied fighter strength they could 'get away' not 'fight to death' like we do in games like AH.
If Pyro or HT (or whoever) is developing the mission 'coad' doesn't recognize this then the CT will suck. However, from all indications they have made it clear that folks will need to stay in formation, fly their flight plan as written etc... Example - if your bomber group is sent into target at 21k you can't run off on your own to 30k etc...
So if you expect a lot of 'high altitude fighting' you maybe in for a shock to find the fights being more representative of real life combat rather then the myth of Ami super planes at 30k smacking down LW 'pigs'.
Even those high altitude fights will only remain at 'high altitude' if both combatants accommodate each other. All the high altitude 'training' you will need is to be able to dive and run to lower altitudes with out damaging your aircraft or giving up your 6.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
Even those high altitude fights will only remain at 'high altitude' if both combatants accommodate each other. All the high altitude 'training' you will need is to be able to dive and run to lower altitudes with out damaging your aircraft or giving up your 6.
I agree completely, especially with this last point. I was in a Bf-109 G-14 just minutes ago, at altitudes higher than my aircraft was desgined for, and when another aircraft, that performed better (It seemed) at those altitudes, all i did was a full-power with WEP dive about 22,000 feet to the deck, where I quickly dominated him. So long as the pilot knows his aircraft and learns to fly it to its best, I dont think this will be much of a problem as far as fighter-vs-fighter. The only issue would be, I think FvB fights. However, from the reading ive done the Luftwaffe was famous for attacking head on, guns blazing, doing as much damage as possible, then doing a slpit-ess to the deck to get out alive. (I remember that detail because it was credited for making kill records confusing, as gunners couldnt always tell if the aircraft was stricken or just running). Honestly, I think the Luftwaffe will be able to hold its own. Getting some new high altitude aircraft would be very good, but for the first tour, skilled pilots should be able to hold their own. Remember, the Luftwaffe didnt struggle so much with lack of technology as lack of pilots. And I think in Aces High, (If the squad names are anything to go by) we will have no problems getting an abundance of Luftwaffe pilots. I look foreward to climbing into my Bf-109... :noid
-
Originally posted by Serenity
I...all i did was a full-power with WEP dive about 22,000 feet to the deck, where I quickly dominated him...
But in CT that would be at least some of the "win" requirements for the US side, and lead to some of the "lose" conditions for the Germans.
So while you are correct, the LW will still have to fight the bomber stream, killing US fighters wont matter much in the victory conditions.
My 2 cents anyway :aok
-
The thing is ... if the US fighter manages to force the German to dive it is a tactical victory to the US fighter. However, if the US fighter follows the German down, or is occupied long enough/dragged away from the bombers, it is a tactical victory for the German. The latter was what the Germans were trying to do with their 109 escorts, allowing the bomber destroyers to attack the bomber formations a couple of times with little or no interference from the US escorts.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
Despite the myths in this thread and the ones in the CT forums not all bombers flew at 'high altitudes'. Bomber boxes were stacked up high, mid, low and then the bomber streams were strung out sometimes over hundreds of miles. They came into target at staggered at heights and directions to confuse German FLAK gunners. Some really low, some much higher.
(snip)
Even those high altitude fights will only remain at 'high altitude' if both combatants accommodate each other. All the high altitude 'training' you will need is to be able to dive and run to lower altitudes with out damaging your aircraft or giving up your 6.
May I suggest a very useful book. The Mighty Eighth War Manual by Roger Freeman.
This goes into detail about bomber formations and altitude stagger. Typically, a box was staggered no more than 1,000 feet from high to low. The book also defines the standard operating altitudes. The 8th AF didn't fly bomber streams like the RAF did. There were not hundreds of miles between leading and trailing units. This is even more true early in the bomber campaign.
The goal of protecting the bombers is met if the escorts force the German fighters to dive away.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I have that book - it doesn't counter anything I wrote.
The 1000 meters (actually 1000 to 3000) deal with the stacking up a single box. The bomber stream consisted of many boxes. These boxes were stacked along the stream at differing attitudes to keep flak gunners from zeroing in on the entire formation.
The US did this not just the British...
7 July 1944.
That day a force of 1,129 Fortresses and Liberators of the US Eighth Air Force set out from England to bomb aircraft factories in the Leipzig area and the synthetic oil plants at Boehlen, Leuna-Merseburg and Lutzgendorf. The AGO Focke Wulf works in Oschersleben were a particular target for the bombers even now as the emphasis of the bombing war was switching to the destruction of oil production centres. At about eight o'clock that morning the initial Luftlagemeldung ( air situation report ) was received in the 'Heimatflakbatterien' in Magdeburg. The Würzburg-Riesen ( long range radar ) had detected large air movements over East Anglia. As the bomber formations droned into Germany Alarmstufe 1 ( alert ) was given to all flak batteries and as the bombers approached the Münster-Osnabruck area the civil population was warned and smoke pots on the ground began to generate smoke screens over potential targets.Luftflotte Reich gave the order for the defending fighters to assemble over Magdeburg.
It was a beautifully clear day. Dense condensation trails could be seen up in the stratosphere . There was a continuous deep roaring of the bomber formations. The bombers by-passed the intense flak barrage heading towards the Leipzig area. Further Luftlagemeldungen arrived.
In the air the fighter controller was passing a stream of intercept vectors to Major Walther Dahl , Kommodore JG300, at the head of a Gefechtsverband escorted by Gruppen of JG 300. IV./JG 3 were also airborne. Leading the Fw 190s of his Stabsschwarm west of the intended target Dahl caught sight of his quarry: box after box of bombers heading east. The plan was for the Sturmjäger escorted by sixty Bf109s, to attack the hundred mile long bomber stream at its mid-point. Although the lead and trail bomber formations were heavily escorted, the flanks were covered by small forces making random sweeps.
Major Walter Dahl led his forces in behind a Group of Liberators without any interference from escorts. They were to close to point-blank range before opening fire. Dahl had swung his force in behind the Liberators of the 492nd Bomb Group which, as luck would have it, were temporarily without fighter cover. The Sturmgruppe closed on the American Group's Low Squadron, as Hauptmann Wilhelm Moritz split his force into its three component Sturmstaffeln and directed them against different parts of the enemy formation.
Leutnant Walther Hagenah was one of the German pilots who took part in the attack; " My Staffel was in position about 1,000yd behind 'its' squadron of bombers.The Staffel leader ordered his aircraft into line abreast and, still in close formation, we advanced on the bombers. We were to advance like Frederick the Great's infantrymen, holding our fire until we could see 'the whites of the enemy's eyes'.''
The tactics of the Sturmgruppe were governed by the performance of the wing-mounted 3cm cannon. Although the hexogen high-explosive ammunition fired by this weapon was devastatingly effective, the gun's relatively low muzzle velocity meant that its accuracy fell off rapidly with range . With only 55 rounds per gun, sufficient for about five seconds' firing, the Sturmböcke could not afford to waste ammunition in wild shooting from long range. The sky was alive with a withering hail of defensive fire from the bombers. As the unwieldy fighters slowly advanced on the bombers, the Sturmbock pilots could only grit their teeth until they were right up close against the bombers.
The huge bulk of the radial engine and the heavy armour plate around the cockpit allowed the Sturm force to press on with a certain impunity, as Hagenath remembers " like the armoured knights in the Middle Ages, we were well protected . A Staffel might lose one or two aircraft during the advance, but the rest continued relentlessly on ." Positioned now about 100yd behind the bombers the Staffel leader barked out the order to open fire ' Pauke ! Pauke ! ..'. From such a range the Staffel could hardly miss, and the 3cm explosive rounds struck home . Just 2 rounds could take the tail off a B-17. A B-24's fuselage structure was not as sturdy. The enemy bombers literally fell apart in front of the Sturmgruppe.
Now expand your library and gets some books written by LW pilots who actually engaged bombers and their escort.
Any of the Chronicles by Eric Mombeck (Jagdgeschwader 1, 2, 4, 5 & Sturmstaffel 1 Chronicles).
JG 300. A Chronicle of a Jagdgeschwader in the Battle for Germany. Volume 1: June 1943 to September 1944 by Jean-Yves Lorant and Richard Guyat.
Jagdgeschwader 301/302 'Wild Sau' by Willie Reschke
In almost all those books there's almost no mention of combat above 8000m.
Most is between 5000 and 7000m. Some much lower.
-
From Toad's 303rd Bomb Group link... A brief sample of missions.
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 161
27 May 1944
Target: Railroad marshalling yards, Mannheim, Germany
Crews Dispatched 37
Length of Mission: 6 hours, 45 minutes
Bomb Load: 10 x 500 lb G.P. A.N. M-64 bombs
Bombing Altitudes: Group A - 25,000 ft; Group B - 23,900 ft
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 187
21 June 1944
City Area, Berlin, Germany
Crews Dispatched: 43
Crews Lost: Lt. Allen, Lt. Way & Lt. Morningstar
Crew Members Lost or Wounded: 5 crewmen were wounded
Length of Mission: 8 hours, 25 minutes
Bomb Load: 8 x 500 lb M17 Incendiary bombs
Bombing Altitudes: 28,400 ft; 27,000 ft & 25,900 ft
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 194
29 June 1944
Target: Erla Aircraft Components Factory, Heiterblick, Germany
Crews Dispatched: 36
Crews Lost: Lt. Roy, 8 KIA, 1 POW
Length of Mission: 7 hours, 55 minutes
Bomb Load: 10 x 500 lb G.P. M43 bombs
Bombing Altitudes: Group A - 25,000 ft; Group B - 24,000 ft
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 197
6 July 1944
Target: V-Weapon Sites "No Ball" Target,
Beaumetz-Les-Aires, France
Crews Dispatched: 38
Length of Mission: 4 hours, 25 minutes
Bomb Load: 12 x 500 lb G.P. M43 bombs
Bombing Altitudes: 26,000, 25,100 & 24,500 ft
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 201
11 July 1944
Target: City area, Munich, Germany
Crews Dispatched: 38
Length of Mission: 8 hours, 50 minutes
Bomb Load: 18 X 250 lb M57 bombs
Bombing Altitudes: Group A - 27,500 ft; Group B - 25,300 ft
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 213
28 July 1944
Target: Leuna Synthetic Oil Plant, Merseburg, Germany
Crews Dispatched: 37
Length of Mission: 7 hours, 50 minutes
Bomb Load: 10 x 500 lb M43 bombs
Bombing Altitudes: 26,200, 25,200 & 24,200 ft
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 206
18 July 1944
Target: Experimental V-Rocket Station, Peenemunde, Germany
Crews Dispatched: 39
Length of Mission: 8 hours, 40 minutes
Bomb Load: 10 x 500 lb G.P. M43 bombs
Bombing Altitudes: Group A - 25,100 ft; Group B - 23,300 ft
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 208
20 July 1944
Target: Junkers Flugzeug Motorwerke, Dessau, Germany
Crews Dispatched: 37
Crew Members Killed or Wounded: 2 crewmembers wounded
Length of Mission: 8 hours, 45 minutes
Bomb Load: 10 x 500 lb G.P. & 38 x 100 lb M47 Incendiary bombs
Bombing Altitudes: 26,000, 25,000 & 24,000 ft
Seems to support my statement that the bombers will generally be at 25,000 feet, with the escorts 2,000 to 5,000 feet higher.
If the Luftwaffe is going to engage the bombers, they will have to climb to at least 25k, probably higher.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Thanks for proving my point...
They sure staggered more the 1000ft high to low -
Didja bother to read it?
-
Well, it looks like the maximum spread was around 2200 feet, not hardly the 1000 meters you claimed. Looks like the lowest flight was at 23000 or above.
-
Um, even B-17Gs flew as low as 17,000 feet. In the book about the 303rd, Osprey's "303rd Bombardment Group" crew records said that several times the low squadrons would be between 17,000 and 18,000 feet. It was primarily due to weather, but nonetheless it happened.
-
Lordy folks WW is just trying to give us a look at what it would be like to fight that high.....NOT that HT has 30k set as the normal bomb run we will see in CT.
Maybe wait for CT to come out before going off about what the standard operation alt was for the bombers and escorts.
WW it has been a good read, thanks for doing it. :aok
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Well, it looks like the maximum spread was around 2200 feet, not hardly the 1000 meters you claimed.
For that Group - but 2200ft is greater then just a 1000ft. I gave a range of altitudes
1000 meters (actually 1000 to 3000)
The part is parenthesis was meant as feet - 1000m = 3281ft
WW claimed:
. Typically, a box was staggered no more than 1,000 feet from high to low.
Which is not correct
Looks like the lowest flight was at 23000 or above.
23000ft was the lowest section of that group. I said the US bombers flew in large streams sometimes 100s of miles and staggered their direction and altitude over the target:
Um, even B-17Gs flew as low as 17,000 feet. In the book about the 303rd, Osprey's "303rd Bombardment Group" crew records said that several times the low squadrons would be between 17,000 and 18,000 feet. It was primarily due to weather, but nonetheless it happened.
I have that book as well and you are correct. However, my point wasn't that no bomber flew higher then XXX feet. What I said was the LW wasn't dogfighting at 30k + feet.
Jordi - during the planning of the Ruhr Campaign - posted logs showing the average height of raids into the Ruhr around 17-19k ft. Some as low as 9000ft by the USAAF. Based on this they enforced an ALT CAP of around 25k ft for the bombers and 27k for the fighters (IIRC) in this scenario.
In Big Week the altitude CAP was higher 27k ft for bombers and 30k for the fighters. Even then we didn't have 'high altitude dogfighting'. You get a high altitude fight if all the combatants involved stay at high altitude. Folks come in high but fights fell low fast right in the altitude ranges that better suited the LW.
If all bomber formations in the CT run at 30k ft then that's not representative of history. I imagine you will see something along the lines of staggered formations - some more heavily escorted then others offering a wider range of targets.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
Which is incorrect.
It's not incorrect. I just examined every bomber box formation used by the 8th AF. From highest to lowest, the vertical range goes from 700 feet to 1,390 feet.
Since you have Freeman's book, have a look at pages 40 through 44. There are illustrations showing standard box formations used throughout the war. Please point out one that shows 1,000 meters spanning high to low. Read pages 37 through 44 for details.
What is incorrect is 1,000 meters (which is clearly incorrect as the USAAF didn't use the metric system).
As to the argument that the 8th flew much lower is a strawman, it's using the exception to the rule to indicate that the standard altitude was not at or near 25,000 feet. One can always find special missions that flew lower, but these were the exception, not the rule.
For the record, I never said bombers would be flying at 30k. I stated that the some escorts will be found at 30k and that the Luftwaffe will have to climb that high to attack effectively. See pages 68 and 69 for details on fighter formations while escorting bombers.
My regards,
Widewing
-
(http://www.b17sam.com/files/bombstream.jpg)
Considering the fact that the B-17 is 74-75 feet long it seems like the vertical separation of these formations are far greater than 1000 feet.
-
P47N in European theater? Was it widely used and how many where there?
-C+
PS. "...er...are you thinking of testing the A8...?" :lol
I don't think anyone is interested in A8. There were people that were interested but they have "gone" away.
-
I read somewhere that the p38 perfomed badly at High Altitude due to problems with the Radiators and spark plugs,these problems weren't solved until the J model,by which time the P51 was King...:(
-
I read somewhere that the internet is the best place to argue. Things can heat up between history buffs! No pun intended.
-
It's not incorrect. I just examined every bomber box formation used by the 8th AF. From highest to lowest, the vertical range goes from 700 feet to 1,390 feet.
You just re-posted Toads post that shows as much as 2200ft separation. As I said go the Library or buy book detailing the accounts of pilots who actually attacked USAAF bombers and tell them they are 'wrong'.
For the record, I never said bombers would be flying at 30k. I stated that the some escorts will be found at 30k and that the Luftwaffe will have to climb that high to attack effectively. See pages 68 and 69 for details on fighter formations while escorting bombers.
The Luftwaffe didn't need to climb that high. They picked sections of the bomber stream that were less protected by escorts. See my quote above.
-
Cowboys and Indians by Jeff Ethell posted by Neil Page (http://members.aol.com/kaczmarek190/15August.htm)
Neil Page did the English Translation for JG 300. A Chronicle of a Jagdgeschwader in the Battle for Germany. Volume 1: June 1943 to September 1944 by Jean-Yves Lorant and Richard Guyat
I am sure WW know who Jeff Ethell is.
The article is a decent read. Some things to look for:
'As far as the eye could see stretched wing after wing of...'
'Buried deep in the stream'
Dahl's radio request:
'Have the enemy in sight in northerly direction over Trier - 6500m (21325ft) - the Pulks are without escort cover. Shall I attack?'
'Nosing up after running through the low box..'
Anyway, for those who don't want to pick up a book the Ethell article is representative of almost all Sturm pilot accounts.
-
Different formations used at various times
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/formation_08.jpg)
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/formation_07.jpg)
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/formation_05.jpg)
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/formation_04.jpg)
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/formation_06.jpg)
-
Thanks but I have those and posted them before for the Big Week scenario to encourage better formation flying by allied bombers.
Diagrams are hardly definitive of application. Maintaining spacing within a formation was difficult and there would be variation across a stream. Some were better at in then others. You can see this logs WW cross posted from Toad.
-
What makes you think I posted them for you ONLY Bruno? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
What makes you think I posted them for you ONLY Bruno? :rolleyes:
What makes you think my reply on an open forum was just for you..?
I was making it aware that these diagrams aren't new to me for those who may read this thread.
-
Originally posted by Hazzer
I read somewhere that the p38 perfomed badly at High Altitude due to problems with the Radiators and spark plugs,these problems weren't solved until the J model,by which time the P51 was King...:(
The only problem with the radiators was the pilots didn't operate the radiator doors correctly. Fail to operate the cowl flaps or radiator doors on any plane and you'll have engine problems.
Once Lockheed an Allison personnel were dispatched, and diagnoses the problems as primarily caused by pilots not reading the manual, or worse, ignoring it, often at the suggestion of command staff or line mechanics, many, or actually most, of the problems were quickly solved.
The problem wasn't really the spark plugs, but rather the lead in the British fuel. Actually, the lead was not mixed well and came out of suspension. When Doolittle got Shell to get some decent fuel to the 8th, the detonation, burnt valves, and fouled plugs were for the most part a thing of the past.
As an aside, the P-51 suffered severe teething issues, with cracked heads dumping coolant, causing the engines to seize, among other problems, and including the same problem with fouled plugs due to the lead, only to a somewhat greater degree. And a P-51 with a dead engine doesn't fly at all.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
What makes you think my reply on an open forum was just for you..?
I was making it aware that these diagrams aren't new to me for those who may read this thread.
Thanks but I have those and posted them before
:)
-
Originally posted by Bruno
Thanks for proving my point...
They sure staggered more the 1000ft high to low -
Didja bother to read it?
Yeah, I did read it, but apparently you didn't.
Note Group A, Group B, and Group C....
The altitude difference is between GROUPS, not SQUADRONS of a Group.
The box formation was for each Group. The spacing is for the individual squadrons of that Group.
Groups were assigned differing altitudes, but the bombers of each box were spaced as I described and as Milo has shown (same graphics are in Freeman's book).
I see that you are working overtime to wiggle out of this, but there's no wiggle room here.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Charge
P47N in European theater? Was it widely used and how many where there?
-C+
PS. "...er...are you thinking of testing the A8...?" :lol
I don't think anyone is interested in A8. There were people that were interested but they have "gone" away.
No P-47Ns were deployed to the ETO (as stated earlier in the thread). We were speculating "what-ifs" should the P-47N be the substitute for the better performing P-47M.
I have tested the 190A-8... It's greater weight hurts it and it is inferior to the A-5 in handling and performance. Of course, there's those guns....
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Bruno
Cowboys and Indians by Jeff Ethell posted by Neil Page (http://members.aol.com/kaczmarek190/15August.htm)
Neil Page did the English Translation for JG 300. A Chronicle of a Jagdgeschwader in the Battle for Germany. Volume 1: June 1943 to September 1944 by Jean-Yves Lorant and Richard Guyat
I am sure WW know who Jeff Ethell is.
The article is a decent read. Some things to look for:
'As far as the eye could see stretched wing after wing of...'
'Buried deep in the stream'
Dahl's radio request:
'Have the enemy in sight in northerly direction over Trier - 6500m (21325ft) - the Pulks are without escort cover. Shall I attack?'
'Nosing up after running through the low box..'
Anyway, for those who don't want to pick up a book the Ethell article is representative of almost all Sturm pilot accounts.
You missed the sentence that preceded that which you posted...
"The B-17s were at 25,000 feet"
Did you happen to notice that one of the bomber groups involved was the 303rd? From Toad's link again...
15 August 1944
Airfield near Wiesbaden, Germany
Crews Dispatched: 39
Crews Lost: 9 A/C, 23 KIA, 48 POW, 10 EVD
Crewmembers Lost or Wounded: 1 KIA, 2 WIA
Length of Mission: 6 hours, 46 minutes
Bomb Load: 4 x 1,000 lb G.P. M43
& 4 x 500 lb M17 Incendiary bombs
Bombing Altitudes: 25,600, 25,500 & 24,900 ft
Ammo Fired: 50,050 rounds
Thirty-nine 303rd BG(H) B-17s took off, flying as the 41st "B" CBW formation. Thirty seven aircraft dropped a total of 147 1,000-lb. M43 and 146 500-lb. M17 incendiary bombs on the primary target. Hits were made on one hangar with a near miss on another. The airfield landing ground sustained numerous hits, the entire area was blanketed by incendiary bombs. Three hits were made on a railroad line. Bombing was from 25,600, 25,500, and 24,900 ft.
Notice the altitudes of the squadrons.... Not 1,000 yards apart, but just 700 feet from low squadron to high squadron. Notice also that the lowest was a lot higher than 6,500 meters (an estimation by the German pilot, I'm sure).
Oh, and yes, you could say that I have heard of Jeff Ethell. After Jeff died in the P-38 crash, Warren Bodie recruited me to fill his co-writing spot on a part-time basis. Warren and I shared several bylines before he found a full-time aviation writer to fill the position permanently.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Yeah, I did read it, but apparently you didn't.
Note Group A, Group B, and Group C....
The altitude difference is between GROUPS, not SQUADRONS of a Group.
The box formation was for each Group. The spacing is for the individual squadrons of that Group.
Groups were assigned differing altitudes, but the bombers of each box were spaced as I described and as Milo has shown (same graphics are in Freeman's book).
I see that you are working overtime to wiggle out of this, but there's no wiggle room here.
My regards,
Widewing
There were 3 three bomb groups in the 303rd Bomb Group..?
The 303rd BG was made up of:
358th BS
359th BS
360th BS
427th BS
Look at the number of bombers sent out in the reports you cut and pasted from Toad - 37, 36, 38, 43 etc...
At that time frame a bomber group consisted of 36 aircraft divided into 3 squadrons of 12 planes. Each squadron was then positioned High, Lead, Low to form the box..
The Reports referring to Group A and Group B, aren't 'bomber groups' but reference the positions assigned to those squadron in the formation/box.
You are just plane wrong - yet again...
-
Originally posted by Bruno
There were 3 three bomb groups in the 303rd Bomb Group..?
The 303rd BG was made up of:
358th BS
359th BS
360th BS
427th BS
Look at the number of bombers sent out in the reports you cut and pasted from Toad - 37, 36, 38, 43 etc...
At that time frame a bomber group consisted of 36 aircraft divided into 3 squadrons of 12 planes. Each squadron was then positioned High, Lead, Low to form the box..
The Reports referring to Group A and Group B, aren't 'bomber groups' but reference the positions assigned to those squadron in the formation/box.
You are just plane wrong - yet again...
Listen, don't play dumb... Unless you're not playing...
My regards,
Widewing
-
Did you happen to notice that one of the bomber groups involved was the 303rd?
I did and that's why I posted it.
The B-17s were at 25,000 feet
25,000 feet exactly - wow that must be accurate, eh?
FYI - 6500m is 21325ft - 24900ft is
the lowest was a lot higher than 6,500 meters
Yes there were higher bombers in the box - the LW in this instance attacked the lower group. They weren't dogfighting at 30k nor were the LW forced to climb to 30k to attack.
Notice the altitudes of the squadrons.... Not 1,000 yards apart, but just 700 feet from low squadron to high squadron.
I gave a range of 1000 to 3000ft - I can post other LW accounts that confirm that some BG were better at formation flying then others. I can post other accounts where a Groups didn't reach their assigned altitudes etc...
However, we all know this, right?
Oh, and yes, you could say that I have heard of Jeff Ethell. After Jeff died in the P-38 crash, Warren Bodie recruited me to fill his co-writing spot on a part-time basis. Warren and I shared several bylines before he found a full-time aviation writer to fill the position permanently.
I knew you were familiar with Mr. Ethell - that's another reason I posted it. Maybe you can help Neil out and locate the full article..?
Neil wrote:
I have no information on what journal this originally appeared in - and I'm unfortunately missing the end of the piece - you'll need to scroll across to read Page 3 - but you get the idea I'm sure
Gotta run - Staffel Practice - We actually were fighting at 8500m last night in Bf 109s - 3 kills no losses. We have another mission in this campaign tomorrow and need to spend the night going over a few things with the Nachwuchs. They tend to be a bit to anxious and get into and spots or lost in the contrails.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Listen, don't play dumb... Unless you're not playing...
My regards,
Widewing
You're the genius who can't comprehend what he is reading. How many groups are in the 303rd Bomb Group?
You wrote:
Note Group A, Group B, and Group C....
The altitude difference is between GROUPS, not SQUADRONS of a Group.
The stuff you pasted from Toad deals with one group - not three.
Those reports deal with the 303rd not anything else...
-
Grouping A, Grouping B, Grouping C
-
I'm not a mind reader but I think this thread has drifted quite far from its original intent.
The problems in the coming TOD match up aren't really all about the altitude where the fights are going to be but with my AH experience I think it is still going to play a very significant role.
There are other problems like the fact that 109G-6's top speed with WEP at FTH is (at least very close last time I checked) the very famous 386mph (621km/h) figure. This figure was achieved with a captured nightfighter (Wilde Sau) G-6 which had ETC-rack and wingcannons. Clean 109G-6 with WEP should do around 401-404mph. Even then it obviously won't be catching P-47s at altitude but every bit helps.
And then there is the problem with 190s which can't get even close matching the turning of the P-47s:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/Turning.jpg)
This excerpt is from the USAAF tactical trials where capture 190 was flown against a P-47. AFAIK the variants here are FW-190G3 which roughly matches AH's 190A-5. And the P-47 was either a C or an early D roughly matching AH's D-11.
As it is said in the report. P-47 turns better at high speeds and the difference grows with altitude. That is true in AH aswell, but in AH it also turns better at lower speeds and alts (and with quite a margin) and has always done so. The further the situation is from the truth at low altitudes it is going to be even further as the altitude increases.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
You're the genius who can't comprehend what he is reading. How many groups are in the 303rd Bomb Group?
You wrote:
The stuff you pasted from Toad deals with one group - not three.
Those reports deal with the 303rd not anything else...
Don't you get dizzy going in circles?
You stated that a bomber box is stepped between 1,000 and 3,000 meters from high to low. That's in excess of 3,000 feet, closing in on 10,000 feet at your extreme of 3k meters.
We know that this is not the case.
I stated near the beginning of this thread that, "Typically, the B-17s flew between between 24k and 27k". This is exactly correct.
You used the German pilot's altitude estimate of 6,200 meters to prove that the bombers flew well below 25k. However, you overlooked the previous sentence that stated that the bombers were at 25k, which is seconded by the official record. This did not add to your argument.
Those are the facts...
Now, did some heavy bombers fly below 25k? Absolutely, especially B-24 groups. Being a handful to fly in tight formations at high altitudes, B-24s were generally assigned lower altitudes than the B-17s. However, I already stated that earlier in the thread. Typically, the B-24s were assigned 22k to 24k, but on shorter missions to France, sometimes they were assigned 20k to 22k. By spring of 1944, there wasn't very much fighter opposition over France and the escorts frequently numbered in the many hundreds. It is interesting to note that after March of 1944, the P-38s groups were assigned more coverage of B-24s than B-17s. This was simply due to the P-38s being more reliable below 25k, and consideration of their compression issues; greatly mitigated by flying lower.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Wmaker
As it is said in the report. P-47 turns better at high speeds and the difference grows with altitude. That is true in AH as well, but in AH it also turns better at lower speeds and alts (and with quite a margin) and has always done so. The further the situation is from the truth at low altitudes it is going to be even further as the altitude increases.
I agree. The 190s turn very poorly in Aces High. I just read a piece where the USAAF (8th AF Fighter Command) considered the 190s as more maneuverable than the 109s and a greater threat in maneuver combat.
Then there are the American pilot reports that seem to agree. Don Gentile found himself in a lufbery with a 190 on the deck. He was flying a P-47C-5. He could only just barely prevent the German from gaining lead angle. He was lucky to escape. However, in the game this will not happen. The P-47 will whip around the circle in a few turns and be all over the 190. Flaps help the 190 some, but if you try to get slow enough to get them down, you will get clobbered before ever getting that far.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Don't you get dizzy going in circles?
You stated that a bomber box is stepped between 1,000 and 3,000 meters from high to low. That's in excess of 3,000 feet, closing in on 10,000 feet at your extreme of 3k meters.
No I didn't -
I said many posts back:
After I typed this:
1000 meters (actually 1000 to 3000)
Captain Virgil Hilts caught my error and I corrected it by replying:
The part is parenthesis was meant as feet - 1000m = 3281ft
I told you I gave a range... Your cut and paste of Toad's post confirms just what I wrote.
No where did I say 3000 meters.
I stated near the beginning of this thread that, "Typically, the B-17s flew between between 24k and 27k". This is exactly correct.
The premise of the thread as written by you:
High Altitude woes for the Luftwaffe
In preparation for CT, we have done extensive combat testing at altitudes between 25,000 and 30,000 feet. In short, the Focke Wulfs will be hard pressed to survive against the P-51s and P-47s, much less deal effectively with the bombers. The best handling 190, the A-5, can only manage 389 mph at 30k, 53 mph slower than the P-51B.
You want on to imply that the LW will be dogfighting at those altitudes and used:
Typically, the B-17s flew between between 24k and 27k
As some sort of 'historical rationale'
I said the LW were able to determine what areas of the formations they would hit - not only to avoid escorts but selected formations that provided the best target.
I said the bombers flew staggered, not just in staggered within a group (box) but the groups within the formation were staggered to confuse flak gunners. I said that bomber streams sometimes stretched 100s miles and arrived over the target areas at different altitudes and direct directions. I posted an account of the 7 July 1944 raid that confirms exactly that. You are wrong to claim that only RAF bombers did that.
You used the German pilot's altitude estimate of 6,200 meters to prove that the bombers flew well below 25k. However, you overlooked the previous sentence that stated that the bombers were at 25k, which is seconded by the official record. This did not add to your argument.
BS - I never typed 6200m was the altitude all bombers few at. I never even typed 6200m.
I quoted Dahl who's radio traffic with ground control shows he and JG 300 attacking bombers at 6500m. His got kills that day - you didn't. He account is certainly more credible then yours.
What I said about bombers is not all bombers flew at high altitude. I said that with largee formations and staggered Groups coming into to target at different directions and altitudes that the Luftwaffe wouldn't necessarily go after the high group and they certainly would not be dogfighting at 30k.
The 2 Luftwaffe main fighters had both their superchargers set for the altitude at which combat was most likely to take place. It wasn't at 30k. It is true that the LW desired to improve high altitude performance but this wasn't so they could 'dogfight' at 30k.
Despite the myths in this thread and the ones in the CT forums not all bombers flew at 'high altitudes'. Bomber boxes were stacked up high, mid, low and then the bomber streams were strung out sometimes over hundreds of miles. They came into target at staggered at heights and directions to confuse German FLAK gunners. Some really low, some much higher.
The LW had radar, they had ground observers. they had a command and control system that allowed the lesser defended areas of the bomber streams to be identified and attacked. Even very late in the war LW fighters were able to engage and destroy large numbers of bombers.
The quest by the LW to improve high altitude performance wasn't due solely on 'high altitude combat'. It was to get their smaller number of fighters up higher, or co-altitude, so that if engage by superior allied fighter strength they could 'get away' not 'fight to death' like we do in games like AH.
If Pyro or HT (or whoever) is developing the mission 'coad' doesn't recognize this then the CT will suck. However, from all indications they have made it clear that folks will need to stay in formation, fly their flight plan as written etc... Example - if your bomber group is sent into target at 21k you can't run off on your own to 30k etc...
So if you expect a lot of 'high altitude fighting' you maybe in for a shock to find the fights being more representative of real life combat rather then the myth of Ami super planes at 30k smacking down LW 'pigs'.
Even those high altitude fights will only remain at 'high altitude' if both combatants accommodate each other. All the high altitude 'training' you will need is to be able to dive and run to lower altitudes with out damaging your aircraft or giving up your 6.
You then went on cut and paste one of Toad's posts claiming 3 Groups made up the 303rd Bomb Group (the official Group A, Group B, Group C).
I also wrote:
In almost all those books there's almost no mention of combat above 8000m.
Most is between 5000 and 7000m. Some much lower.
This in reference to dogfighting
No where did I make a definitive claim about bomber altitudes.
You such a tool its not even funny - talk about wigglin'. However, it's not quite as bad as your lying when attributing made up statements and opinions to those who disagree with you...
One 'strawman' after another...
-
I tested Fw 190s @ 25-30K. Trust me, you don't wanna pull more than 2g manuvers at less than 250 mph IAS or you'll stall. Also, forget dogfighting USAAF fighters @ 25k with 190s
-
Or below....
"However, in the game this will not happen. The P-47 will whip around the circle in a few turns and be all over the 190. Flaps help the 190 some, but if you try to get slow enough to get them down, you will get clobbered before ever getting that far."
FW does fine in a furball by switching target all the time so you don't lose speed in trying to follow more maneuverable planes.
In MA having run into P51s, P47s or Tiffies with mediocre or above pilots I have lost 1 on 1s almost every time. (And yes it has crossed my mind that I just suck...)
-C+
-
In MA having run into P51s, P47s or Tiffies with mediocre or above pilots I have lost 1 on 1s almost every time. (And yes it has crossed my mind that I just suck...)
That's OK, Charge.
There's reason why Doom;
* flies at only friendly horde-dominated areas
* needs to be the only one at the Akakosphere
* uses everyone of his friendlies as only bait
* is the first one to leave the scene as soon as a co-alt bogey is spotted
* continuously taunts a lesser-skilled opponent on ch200, in hopes he may reup and become a target again
For anyone who doesn't do that, it's a normal thing to happen. :D
-
Hey look what I found!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roKZ78I3xLw&NR=1
That'll cheer Bruno up a bit! :)
-
This one is for Widewing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX_i6vmbxgM
:)
-
Can anyone answer what type of Bf-109s were flying above P-51s at 30k to 35k? The pilot being interviewed said that while the P-51 was a good high-alt fighter, these 109s ruled at those altitudes.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Can anyone answer what type of Bf-109s were flying above P-51s at 30k to 35k? The pilot being interviewed said that while the P-51 was a good high-alt fighter, these 109s ruled at those altitudes.
Well, between 30 and 35k there rarely was any 109s. The most potent high alt cover was G-10s and K-4s. It is easily seen from the hp curves of the P-51 and 109 engines that P-51 was clearly better at very high altitudes.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Can anyone answer what type of Bf-109s were flying above P-51s at 30k to 35k? The pilot being interviewed said that while the P-51 was a good high-alt fighter, these 109s ruled at those altitudes.
GM1 equipped 109 scouts/escorts. With GM1 the DB 605 would develop full power at any altitude. However, the GM1 system was in place of MW50, so GM1 equipped 109s would not have the extra power from MW50 at lower altitudes.
-
I've never had a shortage of victims while pile-iting a Ta-152 H-1 cartoon aircraft. Only woes I have are lack of targets.
-
Bf 109G-5/U2
Modified G-6 with a pressurized cockpit, GM1 and an enlarged rudder. Full throttle height of 11,140 meters (36,548 feet). Some of the most famous "experten" flew the G-5 in 1943/early 1944 including Hermann Graf and Gerhard Barkhorn.
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/1022_1177506528_109g-5barkhorn.jpg)
Barkhorn in his 109G-5
-
U2 = Recce - That pic of Barkhorn's G-5 you snagged and cropped from Falcon's 109 site isn't equipped with GM-1.
GM-1 wasn't standard and its usefulness was very marginal. It could only be used some 2000m above FTH. It greatly increased fuel consumption as well.
It wasn't their to provide combat power at high altitude for dogfighting but to allow for 'escape' - used mostly by Recce aircraft who were either lightly armed or unarmed all together.
HoHun in an old post on this forum gave the following reply for those interested in its operation:
GM-1 was the German WW2 code-name for N2O (nitrous oxide, or laughing gas).
N2O can be added to the fuel-air mixture of an internal combustion engine. In the compression cycle, it's broken up into its components, releasing oxygen that can be used for combustion.
As the challenge of high-altitude flight mainly consists of getting enough oxygen into the cylinder to maintain adequate power - which due to the decreasing air density becomes more and more difficult at altitude - N2O equates to extra power.
In fact, N2O was injected into the supercharger in liquid form through small jets, and each jet gave a constant power boost when employed. Depending on the type, you might have a 120 HP jet and a 240 HP jet, which of course added 360 HP when used in combination.
That's the resason N2O was available in steps - you couldn't add 360 HP to an engine that was already running at close to full power, or the resulting forces would destroy vital parts of the engine.
This is the main reason N2O was preferred over pure oxygen, which could be (and experimentall, was) used for the same purpose - it just gave too much power.
The nitrogen share of the nitrous oxide has a benefit, too, since it absorbs some energy on being broken up in the cylinder, controlling the detonation and allowing higher pressure.
Since N2O is injected into the supercharger as a liquid, it also gives a charge cooling effect on evaporation (cooler air means more oxygen in the same volume).
Initially, N2O was stored under high pressure to keep it liquid (laughing gas, after all, is a gas under standard conditions), but that meant the N2O vessels blew up like a bomb on being hit, so from 1941/42 on it was stored at very low temperature in an insulated tank that kept the content at less than -90 °C for as long as the sortie lasted.
(It was used by bombers like the Ju 88 and by reconnaissance planes like the Ju 86 as well, so that could be quite a long time. For fighters at readiness on the ground in the hot summer sun, though, the insulation would not have sufficed and the N2O would have begun to boil out through the safety valve after a while.)
For comparison: 0.1 kg/s of N2O injection gave extra 300 - 400 HP, virtually out of nothing.
The only drawbacks were the weight of the system (which also included compressed air bottles to force the N2O out of the insulated tank), and - more importantly - the high rate of consumption. If 0.1 kg/s gave 350 HP, that made for a specific fuel consumption of 1000 g/HPh, which compares very unfavourably to the DB601A's normal 220 g/HPh at high power :-)
So, N2O was bad for range, but great for high-altitude power.
Oh, by the way, someone mentioned that N2O was to be used for short bursts only. According to what I have read, it could be used as long as it was available and in fact short bursts were to be avoided as filling and emptying the N2O lines took some time and created some engine management difficulties.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
I was a big advocate for the addition of the G-14 to AH. It's my favorite 109 of all times next to the G-6. I had asked that when HTC re-did the old G-10, and re-designated it as a K-4, that they keep a 'G-10' with a corrected FM (could use same model as K-4 but different skin - 428mph or so at FTH). This would have finished out the Bf 109 series. A 'G-10' with new FM could have been used as a substitute for either the G-14/AS, or more rare G-6/AS. This would have given AH a Bf 109 that could be used effectively in the 8th AF CT - higher FTH then the G-14 below current K-4 performance. They decided not to bother.
As is the G-14 has a FTH of just 5000m (16400ft). Above that it will just be marginally faster then the G-6. As such a Bf 109 pilot will be basically be flying the same 'aircraft' (based on performance) from Feb '43 until Oct '44. The G-6/AS entered service in May '44 and the G-14/AS June/July '44.
During the Fw 190 re-model we all asked that the Fw 190A-6 be added - same FM as the A-5 could have been used but instead of 2 x MG151/2cm and 2 x 2cm MGFF/M (60 round drums even though the A-5 could carry 90 rounds drum - another long time request that has gotten no support) the A-6 carried 4 x MG151/2cm - considerably better lethality against bombers.
Other things like the addition of the P-47N over the P47C means very little 'happy times' (term borrowed from the Kriegsmarine - where the LW enjoyed numbers and/or a performance edge) for the LW in an 8th ToD. This is irregardless of 30k dogfighting or not.
HT has said not all missions will result in a human being killed - insinuating that some missions maybe easier then others. That's not to say the CT won't be fun or competitive - it just means as a LW flier you will be well behind the performance curve of the Ami Fighters. Which makes flying smart and the use of proper tactics the key. This may make for a real sense of immersion but its yet to be seen how it plays out in a 'game' given AH's player base.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
U2 = Recce - That pic of Barkhorn's G-5 you snagged and cropped from Falcon's 109 site isn't equipped with GM-1.
U2= High-altitude scout/fighter. “Recce” is a word normally used for photo and ground observation planes. I did not say that Barkhorn’s G-5 had GM-1.
Originally posted by Bruno
GM-1 wasn't standard and its usefulness was very marginal. It could only be used some 2000m above FTH. It greatly increased fuel consumption as well.
GM-1 was standard on G-5/U2. Obviously the GM-1 could only be used above FTH. Below FTH the supercharger fed enough air to the engine to allow full power. Above 30,000 feet the GM-1 was very useful and effectively increased FTH well beyond 30,000 feet. The reason it increased fuel consumption is that the engine was able to run at full power with GM-1. The engines of non-GM-1 equipped 109s could not develop full power (and thus full fuel consumption) at those altitudes. AquaShrimp asked what special 109s were operating above 30k … the G-5/U2 was one of them.
The DB 605AS only increased FTH to 8000 meters (26,245 feet), so they could not be the 109s AquaShrimp’s 51 driver was talking about.
-
GScholz wrote:
U2= High-Altitude scout. “Recce” is a word normally used for photo and ground observation planes. I did not say that Barkhorn’s G-5 had GM-1.
um 'Recce' is a shortening of the word 'Reconnaissance' - nothing mroe.
GM-1 was standard on G-5/U2. Obviously the GM-1 could only be used above FTH.
How many G-5/U2 with GM-1 were produced?
It's not obvious - in fact it would produce more power at SL as long as the engine could handle it. The fact that it use was restricted to 2000m or so above FTH is significant as it demonstrates that its not very useful for a fighter.
The DB 605AS only increased FTH to 8000 meters (26,245 feet),
FTH for the G-14/AS was 7500m (680km/h @ 1495 ps). Once the introduction of the AS engined 109s (Bf 109G-5/AS) came into service GM-1 was basically abandoned. The AS increased FTH to an altitude where combat was more common. With the introduction of AS 109s GM-1 use basically ceased. It provide power above where it would be useful to a fighter.
I did not say that Barkhorn’s G-5 had GM-1.
What you wrote is this
Bf 109G-5/U2
Modified G-6 with a pressurized cockpit, GM1 and an enlarged rudder. Full throttle height of 11,140 meters (36,548 feet). Some of the most famous "experten" flew the G-5 in 1943/early 1944 including Hermann Graf and Gerhard Barkhorn.
Clearly implying the G-5 was equipped with GM-1 as standard. You then followed up with an image of a G-5.
but whatever...
-
Now you all, hold your horses for a moment.
The Bomber boxes would often be horsing around at some 25000 feet yes?
The fighters would do free sweeps, high cap and closer escort. While the Allied Iron has the edge at those alts, significally over the 190's, there are some other things to bear in mind.
1: The Allies must cruise very long over LW land, so interceptions have some planning.
2: 25K is a very nice alt for a 109. 109 is from good to very good at high alt.
3: The 190 will still appear and make deadly slash attacks. 190=GUNS!
4. Flak and ground is on the LW side.
Which was very much the case in real life. Also, there the Allies had no radar coverage, so plotting and directing if one got lost would still rely on navigation+recognition as well as the radio contact. (In AH that might be different if there is friendly dot-radar).
Point is that a LW commander in AH would perhaps do things almost exactly as it was done in RL. Use the 109's to slash and confuse, make the 190's go head on to the buffs, and always escape downstairs.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
um 'Recce' is a shortening of the word 'Reconnaissance' - nothing mroe.
Yes, but the word is commonly used for photo and ground observation planes, not air-scouts. The G5/U2 did not have reduced armament in any way (as you mentioned earlier), it was a standard G-5 fighter with the U2 Umrüstsatz which consisted of a GM-1 kit and a larger wooden rudder.
Originally posted by Bruno
How many G-5/U2 with GM-1 were produced?
None I guess since the U2 is just a Umrüstsatz. Any G-5 could be converted at the repair shop to a G-5/U2 provided a U2 kit was available.
Originally posted by Bruno
It's not obvious - in fact it would produce more power at SL as long as the engine could handle it. The fact that it use was restricted to 2000m or so above FTH is significant as it demonstrates that its not very useful for a fighter.
It is very obvious if you know a little about the engine, and I though you did. The DB 605A could not produce more power below FTH without water injection. Below FTH the supercharger could easily handle higher boosts if the engine could handle it, and since nitrous-oxide only gives the engine more oxygen it can only compensate for a lack of air-supply to the engine. Above FTH the supercharger is no longer able to feed the engine with enough air to produce full power, but using nitrous-oxide this can be achieved. The 2000 meter above FTH limitation is probably due to the GM-1 system being an on/off type, thus using it so close to FTH would over-boost the engine.
Originally posted by Bruno
FTH for the G-14/AS was 7500m (680km/h @ 1495 ps). Once the introduction of the AS engined 109s (Bf 109G-5/AS) came into service GM-1 was basically abandoned. The AS increased FTH to an altitude where combat was more common. With the introduction of AS 109s GM-1 use basically ceased. It provide power above where it would be useful to a fighter.
It was not abandoned for high-alt scouts in the west, and later it was used as standard on the Ta 152.
Originally posted by Bruno
What you wrote is this
“Bf 109G-5/U2
Modified G-6 with a pressurized cockpit, GM1 and an enlarged rudder. Full throttle height of 11,140 meters (36,548 feet). Some of the most famous "experten" flew the G-5 *notice no U2 here* in 1943/early 1944 including Hermann Graf and Gerhard Barkhorn.”
Clearly implying the G-5 was equipped with GM-1 as standard. You then followed up with an image of a G-5.
but whatever...
“Whatever” would be correct. I implied nothing.
-
How would this adding-gadgetsandstuff work on the engine life?
As well, what were the ATA's in standard field practise?
I have a 109 flight test from Jan 1944, they're still testing on 1.3/1,43 ATA.
The performance, while nice, is absolutely not stellar. Why were they still testing this in 1944? ? ?
-
I believe that while pure oxygen is very corrosive, nitrous-oxide in inert form is benign. The oxygen is already bound to the nitrogen and thus cannot react with engine components. Only when compressed and heated up in the cylinder does the Nitrous-oxide break down releasing the oxygen.
Wikipedia has an article on nitrous-oxide that interestingly mentions its use in the GM-1 system:
"In vehicle racing, nitrous oxide (often referred to as just "nitrous" in this context to differ from the acronym NOS which is the brand Nitrous Oxide Systems) is sometimes injected into the intake manifold (or prior to the intake manifold; some systems directly inject right before the cylinder) to increase power. The gas itself is not flammable, but it delivers more oxygen than atmospheric air by breaking down at elevated temperatures, allowing the engine to burn more fuel and air, resulting in more powerful combustion. Nitrous oxide is stored as a compressed liquid, the evaporation and expansion of liquid nitrous oxide in the intake manifold causes a large drop in intake charge temperature, resulting in a denser charge, further allowing more air/fuel mixture to enter the cylinder. The lower temperature can also reduce detonation.
The same technique was used during World War II by Luftwaffe aircraft with the GM 1 system to boost the power output of aircraft engines. Originally meant to provide the Luftwaffe standard aircraft with superior high-altitude performance, technological considerations limited its use to extremely high altitudes. Accordingly, it was only used by specialized planes like high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft, high-speed bombers and high-altitude interceptors.
One of the major problems of using nitrous oxide in a reciprocating engine is that it can produce enough power to damage or destroy the engine. Power increases of 25–300% are possible, and if the mechanical structure of the engine is not properly reinforced, the engine may be severely damaged or destroyed during this kind of operation.
It is very important with nitrous oxide augmentation of internal combustion engines to maintain proper operating temperatures and fuel levels to prevent preignition, or detonation (sometimes referred to as knocking or pinging)"
-
I'm just stoked all my alt monkey flying in the MA is going to pay off. Now when someone in the MA calls me an alt monkey, I'll laugh in their face and just reply that I'm training for CT.
ack-ack
-
LOL :D
-
A study during the Korean War, which took place after USAF F-86s were unable to provide adequate escort for B-29s, stated that in order for a fighter to be suitable as an escort, it must have a significant speed advantage over its adversary. As the F-86 and Mig-15 were evenly matched in speed, neither would have been a good escort.
So that being said, acceleration and top speed will play an important part in escort aircraft.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
A study during the Korean War, which took place after USAF F-86s were unable to provide adequate escort for B-29s, stated that in order for a fighter to be suitable as an escort, it must have a significant speed advantage over its adversary. As the F-86 and Mig-15 were evenly matched in speed, neither would have been a good escort.
So that being said, acceleration and top speed will play an important part in escort aircraft.
This is a valid assumption, I think.
Here's some recent data comparing acceleration at 30k. I'll do the same at 25k in the near future.
Time required to accelerate from 150 mph IAS to 200 mph IAS, recorded in minutes:seconds.hundredths of seconds. 50% fuel for all. WEP used in all where available.
190A-8: 2:24.56
P-51B: 0:43.43
SpitIX: 0:48.46
SpitXIV: 0:41.31
P-47D-40: 0:46.82
P-51D: 1:06.50
P-38J: 0:54.96
190D-9: 1:20.47
109G-14: 1:20.91
109K-4: 0:47.07
Ta 152H: 0:47.44
P-38G: 1:04.16
SpitXVI: 0:55.49
P-47N: 0:36.37 (just imagine the much lighter, faster P-47M)
Up at 30k, the 190A fighters have horrendous acceleration as this altitude is far above where they do their best. While the Dora does much better, it's still at the back of the pack. I was surprised at how well the Spitfire LF Mk.XVI did. Engineered for low to medium altitudes, the "16" performed better than I expected, managing 388 mph at 30k.
Another surprise was the P-38G. It handily out-accelerates the Dora and 109G-14. The Dora would eventually catch it in a straight chase, but the 109G-14 is 26 mph slower than this 1942 P-38. You might find it interesting that while the Dora is faster in level flight, the P-38G can escape by simply climbing.
I tested the P-47N at 40,000 feet and it hums along at 455 mph, still faster than the Ta 152H.
My regards,
Widewing