Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: brady on October 28, 2001, 04:25:00 PM
-
After reading yet another post about the FW 190's missing loadout options I decided to pull out my books on the FW 190 and do some digging, I did some surfing to.What I came up with was the following list of "missing options", these options are the ones that have(or seam to)merit for addation to AH.
Bombs:
The basic "F8" was to to have been capable of carying a 500kg bomb on the centerline (or 4 50KG bombs on a bracket), and one 160KG bomb (or 2 50KG bombs) on each wing.
Rockets:
A program was started to test the abality of the panzerschrek rocket to be fired from the F8 aganst armor in the east this program was not finished howeaver, apparentaly it went so well they just went ahead and started to use the rockets, the RLM accepted the system.the system was then improved at least 2 more times, the second phase, the panzerblitz I came in late 44. In early 45 55mm AP rockets were fitted on a pair of racks each with 6 rockets under the wings.
This system was used and improved appon over time as is evedenced by the continued development of the concept.
Big bombs:
I found no evedence of 1000KG bombs being used in a regular way what so ever.
Howeaver the F8/U2 and F8/U3 were special varients capable of carying the 700KG BT700 and the 1,400KK BT1400 respectavely, these were special torpedo bombs for antishiping or hardned targets. KG200 was the only unit( I beleave) to have used them and in very limited numbers.
A8 Rustsatze:
The following are 2 field conversion kits that were often fitted to the A8 series.
R-2 MK 108 cannon under each wing.
R-12 Mk 108 cannon in each outer wing.
The abality to use the AT rockets or to cary 8 50KG or 2 160KG and 1 500KG bomb would greatly enhance the F8's abality to do it's main mishion , JABO. Since their is a ton of evedence to support these options i would hope they could be added in the future.
Sources:
Focke Wulf FW 190
Robert Grinsel
FW 190 in Action
Jerry l. Campbell
Wings of the Luftwaffe
Capt Erich Brown
Encylopedia of Military Aircraft
Angelucci
TM 1985 series.
-
punt
Hey brady did some checking any thing outside of what he posted here falls in to the category of "experimental". One of the biggest problems coming up with definate proof is that alot of the common "field mods" aren't documented or the documentation is lost.
So we cant open a can of worms in which anything goes.
What brady has spelled out here would enhance the 190f8s capability. And I for one would be happy with taking a "conservative" approach to these things. But even looking at it "conservatively" theres options that could be aloud for the f8.
However there are other things I'd rather see and we cant forget the guys running the show here, I'm sure, have a schedule of how and when they want to get things done.
-
TY sir :)
-
Here's another take, from 'Warplanes of the Third Reich' (bold text added by me):
'Basically, the Fw 190F-8 differed from its predecessor, the F-3, in having 13-mm. MG 131 machine guns replaceing the 7.9-mm. calibre MG 17s in the fuselage, improved bomb-release mechanism, and four ETC 50 racks beneath the wings as standard. It was proposed to apply several Umrust-Bausatze to the Fw 190F-8, although, in the event, few of these conversion sets were installed'.
later:
'The III/KG 200 subsequently operated in the West on both daylight and nocturnal sorties, but there is no evidence to indicate the operational use of BT weapons by the unit's Fw 190F-8s'.
'The Fw 190F-8 served as a test-bed in numerous experimental weapons evaluation programmes...
<later, same paragraph>
... and the Panzerschreck was used operationally on the Eastern Front in October 1944, but its poor ballistic characteristics lead to its replacement in December by the Panzerblitz.
The Panzerblitz 1 (Pb1) possessed twice the charge of the Panzerschreck and could be released some 220 yards from the target, or about twice the distance necessary to achieve adequate penetration with the Panzerschreck. Eight Pb 1 rockets were carried beneath the wings of the Fw 190F-8 in two jettisonable wooden crates, but it was necessary to launch the missiles at speeds no higher than 305 m.p.h., rendering the aircraft rather vulnerable to groundfire during the target approach. Thus the Pb 1 gave place to the Pb 2, a modified 55-mm. R4M air-to-air missile with a hollow-charge warhead and launched from a pair of underwing racks each carrying either six or seven rockets.'
The next paragraph begins:
'Yet another anti-tank weapon evaluated by the Fw 190F-8 was the...'
The author doesn't seem to want to commit one way or the other, did these weapons see regular operational use? I'm not sure, and I've never read an account of a pilot using any of these, nor an account of any ground unit being attacked with these. The R4M, however, is widely know to have been used because the pilots who used them and the aircrews who survived them have written of them.
Here's my concern in a nutshell: back in the stone-age days of early AH the 190A8 had a bug where you could load a 500Kg bomb and the climb performance was uneffected. The LW drivers new about this bug for a long time and kept it to themselves. Now LW drivers want weapons which may have less historical relevance than the cursed Chog, and so I am agnostic until I see a few pounds of this 'ton of evidence'.
BTW, here's a cool site which shows some damaged allied bombers that managed to make it back to base:
http://free.prohosting.com/~kopper/acdamg.htm (http://free.prohosting.com/~kopper/acdamg.htm)
Check out the B-17 with a hole in it from a R4M. :)
ra
[ 10-29-2001: Message edited by: ra ]
-
i hated when they fixed that bug
-
I have always backed the historical aproach to aircraft and weapon inclushion in AH, my sources indacate as do yours ra that these Panzerblitz rocket systems were indead used in action, all of theam, the best choice being the 55mm PB 2. What is in dispute is just how many were used in action, and wheater or not they were used in numbers sufficent to warent inclushion, just what are those numbers? What is the magic deciding number for inclushion? Do those differ for each country?, is it a percentage of the totaly output for a country, would they say be heigher for the US because they made more stuff than say Italy?
-
Originally posted by ra:
[QB]
... and the Panzerschreck was used operationally on the Eastern Front in October 1944, but its poor ballistic characteristics lead to its replacement in December by the Panzerblitz.
The Panzerblitz 1 (Pb1) possessed twice the charge of the Panzerschreck and could be released some 220 yards from the target, or about twice the distance necessary to achieve adequate penetration with the Panzerschreck. Eight Pb 1 rockets were carried beneath the wings of the Fw 190F-8 in two jettisonable wooden crates, but it was necessary to launch the missiles at speeds no higher than 305 m.p.h., rendering the aircraft rather vulnerable to groundfire during the target approach. Thus the Pb 1 gave place to the Pb 2, a modified 55-mm. R4M air-to-air missile with a hollow-charge warhead and launched from a pair of underwing racks each carrying either six or seven rockets.'
The next paragraph begins:
'Yet another anti-tank weapon evaluated by the Fw 190F-8 was the...'
I'm still looking for where it says the Pb2 was only evaluated. You conveniently add that excerpt "Yet another anti-tank weapon evaulated", but that has nothing to do with the Pb2. The Pb2 should be added. The R4M should be added. Same rockets, different warheads...kills 2 birds with 1 stone.
-
He doesn't HAVE to say that the rockets were evaluated... the sentence "yet ANOTHER weapon evaluated" implies that something previous was a weapon that was evalutated. Whether or not that is the rocket or some weapon that was not mentioned in the post is unclear.
-
Besides which, if the Pb2 could only be fired 220 meters from the target, it would be useless. Even the single .50 caliber on an M3 can shred a target that comes in at 300 mph with a flat trajectory FAR, FAR befor.comat target gets within 220 meters.
-
A8 Rustsatze:
The following are 2 field conversion kits that were often fitted to the A8 series.
R-2 MK 108 cannon under each wing.
R-12 Mk 108 cannon in each outer wing.
Brady.. Enlighten me here. Our 190A8 ALREADY has twin Mk-108 cannon in each other wing... would that mean that it is a field modification that has already been added to the game? Obviously we do not have the A8/R8 version with extra armor (or if we do I'd REALLY love to see how the standard one faired against buffs). Or does that mean that some 190a8's came "standard" with 2x20mm and 2x30mm, and could add another pair of 30mm cannon for a total of 4x30mm cannon?
Even if 190's were modified in real life to carry twin 30mm cannon under the wing while already packing twin 20mm and twin 30mm in the wings, HT would never put that modification in the game. It would probably be to hard to program.
-
It has the MK 103, not the Mk 108.
Each "R" pack put one MK 108 in either the outer 20mm wing position(replacing it) or put one under it whear the ETC 50 rack would be like on the F8 in a pod. it was as far as I know an either or situation, not both at once.
[ 10-29-2001: Message edited by: brady ]
-
Brady:
I want historical loadouts too. If no unit ever used a particular weapon as a regular means of getting their job done, then I don't think that weapon should be modelled. If Pb2's were used by even one Jabo unit on a repeated basis, ie were found to be effective for the task at hand, then I'm all for HTC modelling them. But no one who posts here seems to know for sure. Everyone just wants another weapon.
The excerpt I posted from Green's book seems to say the the Panzerschrek was briefly tried and found to be impractical, the Pb 1 not much better, and the Pb 2...? It's vague, maybe even Green wasn't sure if Pb 2s went beyond combat trials or not.
Raubvogel:
If you think I clipped things out of context go down to your local library and check out the book. Or do some research of your own, not just 'gimme da weapon I saw in da picture'.
ra
-
My source says that the RLM accepted them for use, they bought it, said it was ok, and it says they were used by anti arnor units (pluarl), but does not say which. and refers to the use of all three types operationaly.
-
Originally posted by brady:
It has the MK 103, not the Mk 108.
Each "R" pack put one MK 108 in either the outer 20mm wing position(replacing it) or put one under it whear the ETC 50 rack would be like on the F8 in a pod. it was as far as I know an either or situation, not both at once.
[ 10-29-2001: Message edited by: brady ]
Brady. So what you are saying is this. A standard 190A8 would have 4 20mm cannons in the wings. An inside pair and an outside pair. Now, there was the option to mount a pair of 30mm cannons, either replacing the outside pair OR leaving all 4 20mm cannons on and placing an additional pair of 30mm cannons underneath the wings (rather like the underwing 20mm gondolas that we have for the 109s). Right? Under no circumstances could 2x20mm (inside pair)+ 2x30mm (outside pair)+ 2x30mm (underwing gondolas) be mounted- HOWEVER, it was possible to mount 2x20mm (inside)+2x20mm(outside)+2x30mm (underwing gondolas)?
I think it'd be neat to be able to mount more cannons on the 190A8.. but I'm not sure how practical it would be. The plane already handles like a Dog, all you could do would be HO with the extra cannons.
-
The MK 108 is a comparatavly light weapon, much more so than the MK 103.The MK 108 in the outboard wing position would replace the outboard 20mm. The MK 108, for the underwing mount would be instead of the MK 103. The advantage of the MK 108 in the place of the outboard 20mm is that it adds some serious punch withought adding a ton of weight normaly assoicated with the MK 103, also it is in the wing more streamlined than the pod MK 108 and certainly more than the MK 103.It is not a case of more cannos but a case of diferent one's.
-
I've done the research RA. Just to please you I will dig my books out and post it again.
One inconclusive excerpt from one source isn't a very concrete argument.
<edit>Dug for about five minutes and found this on Joe Baugher's site. I will check out the sources he cites tomorrow:
In December 1944, the highly efficient missile Panzerblitz 1 (Pb 1) system consisting of six and, more often, eight R4M air-to-air missiles. They were adapted for tank destroying by mounting an 80 mm M8 type warhead for an armor penetration of up to 90 mm. Using the Pb 1 unit it was possible to destroy tanks at a 200 m distance. The only limitation was a maximum speed of 490 km/hr, not to be exceeded during missile firing (in a salvo of eight or in pairs). Up to February 1945 the Luftwaffe received 115 Fw 190F-8/Pb 1 planes.
Sources:Warplanes of the Third Reich, William Green, Doubleday, 1971.
Famous Fighters of the Second World War, William Green, Doubleday 1967.
The Focke-Wulf 190--A Famous German Fighter, Heinz Nowarra, Harleyford, 1965.
[ 10-30-2001: Message edited by: Raubvogel ]
-
Punt up
-
Brady,
I am quite certain AH Fw 190 has the Mk 108. The last I played it had no <edit>gondola</edit> options, and that's the only way you could get Mk 103 attached to Fw 190's wing - it's a small plane and Mk 103 is quite big compared to MG 151/20 or Mk 108.
Type:
weight Kg
100 round belt of ammo Kg
length mm
height mm
width mm
MG 151/20:
42 Kg
19.9 Kg
1767 mm
195 mm
190 mm
Mk 108:
88 Kg
59.5 Kg
1057 mm
216 mm
222 mm
Mk 103:
145 Kg
92 Kg
2316mm
348mm
284mm
Have you seen some numbers of flights made with what kind of armament for Fw 190, or where do you know that R2 and R12 were often used? IS R2 inside the wing structure as well. I don't think I have seen any photos of Mk 108 gondolas.
// fats
[ 10-30-2001: Message edited by: fats ]
-
I could scan some pictures I have of 190's with various underwing gondolas including the Mk103, and e-mail them for someone else to post.
ra
-
ra u can Email me at bradys5@hotmail.com and i will upload team to my site and post away :)
fats you are right it is the 30mm MK 108 on the A8 I just kept thinking it was the MK 103 for some strange reasion,I even asked my squadies on rw last knight as I was posting to be shure they thought it was the MK 103 as well :) i am aware of the size difference between the 2 I just thought that those big barels on the outer wings was some kinda bad artwork, they were to long to be MK 108's so I assumed the were gondals for the MK 103. Their is a museum near hear that has a MK 103 in it I was allowed to drag it out a photograph it, the man helping me and I had a heck of a time moving it the freaking thing is HUGE.
[ 10-30-2001: Message edited by: brady ]
[ 10-30-2001: Message edited by: brady ]
[ 10-30-2001: Message edited by: brady ]
-
Was checking out a few sites about various WW2 planes... the 190A8 was modified in the field to carry a total of 6 20mm Mg151/20s, and 2 13mm MGs. Holy cow that'd be a buttload of firepower.
I looked, but I can't remember if I saw a loadout of 4x30mm cannon for the A8, but I know I DID see 4x20mm + 2x30mm (with the 30mm in gondolas).
-
Hi,
there seems to be some confusion about the possible cannon configurations of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190A-8.
Basically, these were:
Standard: 2x MG131 in nose, 2x MG151/20 in wing roots, 2x MG151/20 in outer wings.
Common: 2x MK108 replacing MG151/20 in outer wings.
Rare: 4x MG151/20 in twin gondolas replacing MG151/20 in outer wings.
Experimental: 2x MK103 in gondolas beneath the wings replacing MG151/20 in outer wings.
By the way, "Rüstsätze" were not "field conversion kits" - the literal translation is "equipment sets". Though these could be applied by the Luftwaffe's maintenance personnel, many aircraft actually came off the factory lines with Rüstsatz applied.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Yea, but even if we could show numbers as to how many were equipped with 6 20mm or 2 20mm and 4 30mm, we'd never get em into the game. That is just to much firepower, even though I'm figureatively drooling just thinking about it <drool> <drool> :D
-
Was there more than one version of the A8, or can some one explain LW nomenclature?
This thread got me digging through my books, and while I can find most, if not all of the weapons mentioned, the model numbers seem to be different, for example:
"190-A8/R1 to R6 were again similar to the A6/R1 to R6, but the A8/R7 for use by the newly established Sturm Gruppen had a specialy armoured cockpit. the A-8/R6 was similar, but had the same armament as the A-8/R2, and the A-8/R11 was an all weather fighter with PKS 12 radio navigation equipment, heated cockpit windows and FuG 125 Hermine radio equipment. The Fw 190 A-8/R12 was similar, but had MK 108 cannon in the outboard wing positions."
Were there so many "A-8's"?. Which one do we have? Do you gius want one definitive A-8, or a never-never hybrid like the AH Spit IX?
-
As far as I can tell, and I am by no means an expert, there was one "190A8".
This 190A8 differed from the 190A5 primarily in that it was heavier and had Mg151/20s outboard instead of the MG/FF's. However, there were a number of 'kits', for lack of a better word, that were mounted on the 190a8. We have one such 'kit', which was replacing the outboard 151/20's with 30mm Mk108 cannons. We are allowed to select between have 4 20mm or 2 20mm and 2 30mm cannon.
Another such kit was the removal of the outboard 151/20's, which were then replaced by an underwing gondola (like the ones we can mount on the 109) that had 2 151/20's in it. That would boost the total of 20mm cannon to 6 (2 inboard, 4 underwing).
Yet another such kit was the addition of underwing gondolas consisting of 1 Mk108 30mm cannon. In this case the 4 Mg151/20's seem to have been kept, although I'm not sure.
I, personally, am not asking for some "never-never land" loadout. The packages existed, and in some case the planes came from the factory like that. I just think it would be neat to be able to change the loadout of the A8, and add a little more variety to it. It is already an inferior plane in the MA, giving it more firepower would not change that. The only plane that I feel is even MORE inferior than the 190A8 is the 190F8. It is quite easily the most useless "Jabo" plane. I bring a 190A8 instead, the extra 2 cannons pack more punch against buildings than the little bitty 50kg bombs do.
-
There was only one basic A8, but it could fulfill many roles due to the widespread possibilities of configuration. The majority of the Rüstsätze were already factory mounted, while many Umrüstsätze could still be applied by the field maintanence (sp?) crews. But don´ttake that as a general rule! Both - the R and U sets - ment either a special weapon configuration, a different engine component or different radio equipment.
Some things I found, but I cannot say i pretend they are true:
A8/R1 - bomber destroyer with 2x double MG151/20 in gondolas under outer wings (abandoned soon)
A8/R2 - bomber destroyer with 2x Mk108 in outer wings
A8/R3 - bomber destroyer with 2x Mk103 in gondolas under the wings (abandoned soon)
A8/R4 - use of GM-1 system and lighter structure for high-alt recon (Jagdaufklärer)(abandoned soon)
A8/R5 - additional 115 liter tank in aft fuselage either for use of MW50 or as fuel tank
A8/R6 - bomber destroyer with 2x WfGr 21 under the wings
A8/R7 - 2x Mk 108 in the outer wings, additional armor for pilot, engine and 30mm ammo (Sturmbock)
A8/R8 - 2x Mk 108 in gondolas under the rings (additional to the equipment of the Sturmbock variant)
A8/R11 - nightfighter with Patin PKS 12S compass and FuG 125 "Hermine" or FuG 218 "Neptune" J3 radar, 2x Mk108 in outer wings
A8/R12 - as R11 but with 20mm Mg151/20 instead of the Mk108
A8/U1 - to-seated training plane (later renamed as Fw190 S which became a different version)
A8/U3 - upper component of a Mistel 2
A8/U11 - Torpedobomber with Ltf 905 torpedo
There are surely many more and I am not sure if those are correct, but the whole topic is indeed a bit difficult.
[ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: csThor ]
-
Slightly off topic, but what is Ta152 30mm? Somehow I've get the impression of the Mk 103 on it?
-
It's a Mk108 janjan.
-
The C-1 was to have Mk 103
// fats
-
Hi Seeker,
>Do you gius want one definitive A-8, or a never-never hybrid like the AH Spit IX?
Unlike the Allies, who produced a wide variety of fighter aircraft, the Luftwaffe standardized on just 2 single-seat fighter types - the Me 109 and the Fw 190.
The configuration of these aircraft was however highly variable so that they could be adapted for their intended role as required.
The ability to adapt was historical, so Aces High should (in the long term) portray this ability. That may result in players flying configurations that historically weren't used, but as long as these are based on realistic options, I wouldn't consider it unrealistic.
After all, trying to pick any Fw 190A-8 variant as "definite" obviously would be futile - not even the real Luftwaffe managed to do that :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Our 190A8 is probably a -U3, which is the fighter-bomber designation.
ra
-
No one seems to be mentioning the fact that the mk 108 and mk 103 had very different performances, the mk103 being the better for balistics and effective range.
quoted from'The Luftwaffe fighter force:the view from the cockpit' Adolf Galland et al.Edited by David Isby.ISBN 1-85367-327-7:
'mg 17 7.9mm 200 meters effective range.
mg 131 13mm 400 meters.
mg 151 15mm 600 meters.
mg 151/20 20mm 400 meters.
mgff 20mm 400 meters.
MK 103 3cm 800 meters.
MK 108 3cm 400 meters.
BK 5cm 800 meters.'
it goes on to list the various set ups sometimes mentioning whether they were used or not...
'F.W.190. Fitting of 4 x Mg 151 under wing armement, in two containers with about 50 rounds per gun.
disadvantages: Loss of 50km/h in speed, and otherwise same as on the me109.Manufactured as complete units and not much used because of American air superiority.Was used by J.G.1.'
this next one answers urchins request:
'F.W.190 2x MK103 underwing armament with about 40 rounds each, in addition to 2x MG 151 and 2x MG 17.Tested in a few models.
Advantages:High muzzle velocity, great range, and good fire effect.
Disadvantages: Speed loss of 60Km/h, aircraft not stable while firing, lowering of ceiling and reduction of manouvrability.The aircraft was overloaded with this armament.'
ok hope this helps.As you can see he mentions their use but also their heavy drawbacks.I still would like to see thes weapons but i want all to realise they will not or at least should not be easy to use.
OH :) and one other thing ............
'Me.262. With BK5.'
:D
[ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: hazed- ]
-
Hi Hazed,
Good info, thanks! :-)
Let me add that the Luftwaffe actually considered the MK108 to be better than the MK103 for the anti-bomber role. The MK108 was more effective, not per barrel but in relation to its weight. A fighter could carry more MK108 cannon than MK103s, and the greater number of shells more than compensated for the weapons lower accuracy.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
My understanding is that the MK 103 installation was seen as an anti-tank weapon rather than for air to air. The Hartkern projectiles were very effective at punching holes through armour (not unlike the current GAU-8/A in the A-10).
Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm)
-
A little something I found in one of my books:
[...]"Personnel of II./SG 1, II./SG 2, II. and III./SG 3, II./SG4 I./SG 10 as well as SG 151 were intensively trained up to december 11 1944 and 82 aircraft were converted to carry the improved "Panzerblitz 2" [...] "In the time between January 21 to March 16, 1945 the weapons were deployed on a total of 16 days. In 25 sorties conducted during that time, a total of 115 Fw 190 fired exactly 934 "panzerblitz" rockets. The pilots reported 23 enemy tanks as destroyed, another eleven were rendered immobile." [...] "At the end of the month [March, 1945] there were "Panzerblitz" equipped Fw 190's at 1. and 3.(Pz)/SG 9, 9./SG 77 and at three additional squadrons within Luftflotte 6's sector. The number of combat-ready units climbed to 12 by April 20, 1945." [...][/b]
Source: "German Anti-Tank Aircraft" by Manfred Griehl & Joachim Dressel
------------------
Ltn. Snefens
RO, Lentolaivue 34 (http://www.muodos.fi/LLv34)
My AH homepage (http://home14.inet.tele.dk/snefens)
(http://home14.inet.tele.dk/snefens/209.gif)
-
snefens you rock,,,,,,,,,,,,,
-
Good stuff Snefens.
-
BUMP!
-
bump
-
bump