Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Tank-Ace on May 13, 2012, 11:17:21 AM
-
I would like to request the 190F-8/U1. It would be really simple to add, as all it would require is adding a pair of 250kg eggs and DT's for the wings.
I imagine it would be implemented simmilar to the loadout options for the M3 (ie, all options on one rack), as they only carried a 250kg egg on the centerline when they had 2 250's on the wing, not the 500kg egg like our current biggest bomb for the F8.
While it wouldn't significantly increase the ordnance carrying capacity of the F-8 (only 50kg, or ~110lbs more), but what it would do is increase the number of usefull bombs carried. In most cases, a 250kg bomb is preferable to 4 50kg bombs.
So overall, we gain a lot of versatility that the F-8 has been a bit lacking in, all for a minimal ammount of work, and we lose nothing in exchange. Lot of benefit, no down sides.
-
Too bad it couldn't do the 500kg and the two 250kg bombs.
-
I think it could have, its just that it didn't. Unless HTC is fine with each individual option being correct, and the combinations being... sketchy, then we'll not see 1000kg of ordnance on the F-8.
-
Edited:
I ran across a few sections, it appears the F series did not carry larger then 50kg bombs on the wings, only Pzschr, PB1,2 Wfr. Gr. 28/32.
The F-8/U1 its showing a pair of 250kg on the wings - NO centerline bomb or Pair of 300 L Drop Tanks or pair of S 250.
Now this is sketchy to me, because I don't see why a G-8 model cannot carry 3x 250kg bombs.
-
Do you mean 'why an F-8 model can't carry 3 250kg bombs', or are you talking about the actual G model?
I've seen pics with 3 bomb racks on an F model, centerline rack loaded, bombs waiting by the other two. Kinda suggests that they were gonna load those bombs on the wings. I'll try and dig it up.
EDIT: Heres support for a torpedo bomber variant (the /R14 IIRC).
(http://i53.tinypic.com/24kwqo3.jpg)
-
I don't believe the torpedo was anything more than a trial. It was never used operationally as I understand it.
-
I don't believe the torpedo was anything more than a trial. It was never used operationally as I understand it.
Really? Damn, I was looking forward to torpedoing ships from a 190 :cry.
-
I don't believe the torpedo was anything more than a trial. It was never used operationally as I understand it.
Yes, it was only trial.
-
F models were ground attack, often with added armor depending on what variant number it was.
G models were long range, often employing droptanks and bombs in combination, but having no additional armor. G models had the cowl guns removed as well to increase range by saving weight, and had no outboard guns.
I believe some G models could carry 250kg outboard bombs and a DT centerline, but often you'd get 2 DTs outboard and a single centerline, similar to the Ju-87R-2, which carried 1 large bomb over very long ranges to hit targets otherwise untouchable.
Loading it out with 3x bombs, while "technically" possible was never done (as far as I recall), as the point was always to get less bombs to a target further away. Loading it out with all bombs decreased range and effectiveness.
So, technically yes, but operationally it wasn't really how they did it.
-
IIRC there was a thread not too long ago about P51s never carrying bombs and rockets at the same time.
-
IIRC there was a thread not too long ago about P51s never carrying bombs and rockets at the same time.
That was due to their need to carry DTs for the mission due to range ie; Iwo Jima to Japan. So they went with DTs and rockets.
-
That was due to their need to carry DTs for the mission due to range ie; Iwo Jima to Japan. So they went with DTs and rockets.
If P-51's can carry 1000lb bombs and rockets in AH, then no reason the F-8 shouldn't be able to carry 3 250kg eggs.
-
If P-51's can carry bombs and rockets in AH, then no reason the F-8 shouldn't be able to carry 3 250kg eggs.
Show 1 photo of a F8 carrying 3 250kg bombs.
-
Photo of P-51 carrying 6 rockets and a pair of thousand-pounders.
-
Photo of P-51 carrying 6 rockets and a pair of thousand-pounders.
That's not what you are trying to argue. Read up.
-
That's not what you are trying to argue. Read up.
Thats a bit unclear. Do you mean that I'm not trying to argue that the F8 should be able to carry 3 250kg bombs, or that I'm not trying to argue based on the P-51 having a historically incorrect loadout combination?
-
Thats a bit unclear. Do you mean that I'm not trying to argue that the F8 should be able to carry 3 250kg bombs, or that I'm not trying to argue based on the P-51 having a historically incorrect loadout combination?
The F8 would not have 3 bombs loaded - that is what this thread is about the Fw190 F8..........P51 thread is a whole new subject and different thread. It would seem to me if the Germans COULD of added that extra bomb - why didn't they? I see NO F8 or G model loaded with 3x 250kgs.
Possibly the airframe couldn't handle it? Maybe performance was so degraded it was unwise to do so? Still not one photo shows an F8 or G model loaded with 3 eggs.
From what I see with the F8 model there are 2x 250kgs or 2x S 250s or 2x 300L Drop Tanks.
Whether this is accurate I don't know, so far 2 manuals say this out of 5 which I haven't gone through each one entirely to say otherwise.
-
And so? If the P-51 could have carried 2 1000lb bombs and 6 HVAR rockets, but didn't , and yet carries both simultaneously in the game, then we have a precedent to let the 190F8 carry 3 250kg bombs, so long as it could have carried 3 bombs.
That or we need to go through the game and remove any kinda sketchy loadout combinations. Its entirely unfair to let the P-51 carry two things it never carried simultaneously, but then to deny that capablity to the 190F8.
-
And so? If the P-51 could have carried 2 1000lb bombs and 6 HVAR rockets, but didn't , and yet carries both simultaneously in the game, then we have a precedent to let the 190F8 carry 3 250kg bombs, so long as it could have carried 3 bombs.
That or we need to go through the game and remove any kinda sketchy loadout combinations. Its entirely unfair to let the P-51 carry two things it never carried simultaneously, but then to deny that capablity to the 190F8.
So basically you want the 190F to have an incorrect loadout because the P51D has an incorrect loadout as well? Why not just add nukes to since B29s had them.
-
Just saying, either fix the damn thing, or give the other countrys a good mid-weight attacker. Personally, I'd rather see the P-51 fixed, and the two wing bombs given to the 190F8.
-
Just saying, either fix the damn thing, or give the other countrys a good mid-weight attacker. Personally, I'd rather see the P-51 fixed, and the two wing bombs given to the 190F8.
I wrote a few threads on it over the years, recent one was few months ago - check "perked weapons" whining about it won't get it fixed, I cannot find proof 51s didn't carry the ords - the few photos available don't tell much.
-
I have to agree: Adding a historically false loadout just to perpetuate some false ideal that all nations have to have the same loadout is stupid to the max.
-
I have to agree: Adding a historically false loadout just to perpetuate some false ideal that all nations have to have the same loadout is stupid to the max.
I don't recall seeing a direct thread asking to either perk or move the 51 loadout of having rockets and 1k bombs, its been discussed but nothing more.
-
No, the threads with the P-51 were conclusive. Hitech chimed in saying he wasn't going to limit the combinations as long as the historic loads were authentic. So on the P-51 he said he wasn't going to remove that pairing of ord.
That doesn't mean we should intentionally introduce other false loadouts. Especially since the 190G was intended to be a long range bomber to replace Ju-87R-2s and hit single undefended targets at long distances. Already the F-series has excellent range in-game, and this is just a fake argument to try and get some similar inequity included for the Germans.
There's no point in adding it, if that's the motivation.
-
There is even a picture of SC250s in wings and SC500 under belly in F8.
We should have wingmounted SC250s and if there are no restrictions of combining armaments a 2x250+1x500 loadout becomes a fact. :cool:
-C+
-
Either way, I want to see the wing-mounted 250kg bombs.
However, I'm can't find that picture I was looking for, and I can't find any others with all 3 bomb racks loaded. I can find one where all three racks are present, but no solid evidence for all 3 bombs being carried simultaneously.
-
Either way, I want to see the wing-mounted 250kg bombs.
However, I'm can't find that picture I was looking for, and I can't find any others with all 3 bomb racks loaded. I can find one where all three racks are present, but no solid evidence for all 3 bombs being carried simultaneously.
good enuf. Mustangs with bombs/ rockets & all that jazz
-
If they add it I hope they do it as a package deal, one option that is 2 bombs outboard, centerline DT, and another option that is the reverse. You shouldn't be able to load 3 bombs. It wasn't used at all, that I can remember.
-
Well thats all fine and dandy, but if it depends on how HTC does it. I mean if they want to do it like they did with the P-51, I'm not going to complain, but I would rather see the P-51 changed.
-
Well thats all fine and dandy, but if it depends on how HTC does it. I mean if they want to do it like they did with the P-51, I'm not going to complain, but I would rather see the P-51 changed.
It won't be done like the 51, the 51 won't touched either until it gets updated again - which makes sense, there are 500 other projects to work on.
Correcting a unhistorical loadout isn't a major issue.
-
I personally can't find a use for the 190F-8. the fighter comparison chart shows the F-8 with about equal performance to the A-8 but I do not find that to be the case. The 190F-8 is a horrible dog fighter and does not Carrie as good an arms package as the A-5 and A-8. I don't see how adding a bomb set up it never had would help this plane or the game.
-
I personally can't find a use for the 190F-8. the fighter comparison chart shows the F-8 with about equal performance to the A-8 but I do not find that to be the case. The 190F-8 is a horrible dog fighter and does not Carrie as good an arms package as the A-5 and A-8. I don't see how adding a bomb set up it never had would help this plane or the game.
It would really be used for Scenarios as a Jabo - this is pretty much the only reason to add the 190F/G - as a Tank buster its pretty much worthless, I had a few victories with it but nothing more then half what I can get in an Il-2 or HurriD. As a Fighter I see no reason, the A5 would school it in every which way.
As a dive bomber, why fly with one 500kg bomb when a p51D can load two 1000lb bombs.
-
It would really be used for Scenarios as a Jabo - this is pretty much the only reason to add the 190F/G - as a Tank buster its pretty much worthless, I had a few victories with it but nothing more then half what I can get in an Il-2 or HurriD.
This remark made me look up the 190F's kills vs vehicles in comparison to the Hurricane D, which commonly is not being called "worthless vs tanks" these days. ;)
The numbers for 2011 are as follows:
(http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/3210/190fvshurrid.jpg)
If we take a closer look at the tank kill numbers, we will see that the 190F has a higher percentage of kills vs typically "defensive" tanks, that are much more being used on home turf than tanks like M4(75) or Panzer IV, which are common town attackers. This indicates that while both planes have about the same number of GV kills, the Hurricane is the defensive GV hunter while the 190F is the offensive one.
But the 190 obiously not more of a hangar queen than the Hurricane IID.
-
Fw190F-8 carries the only air-to-ground rockets that can kill a Tiger II.
-
I will give the F-8 another try against GVs as lone as there are no fighters in the area lol. But I think I will go off line and do some practice with its rockets first. Lusche, thank you for posting the stats for the FW-190F-8 as a tank buster.
-
I wonder though, what percentage of those kills were gained by just salvoing off half the rockets in one go, or just dropping the 1k bomb on someone's head?
-
I wonder though, what percentage of those kills were gained by just salvoing off half the rockets in one go, or just dropping the 1k bomb on someone's head?
The majority, becasue that are the proper weapons and tactics for that job. Or do we expect the 190F to kill tanks with it's machineguns?
-
The majority, becasue that are the proper weapons and tactics for that job. Or do we expect the 190F to kill tanks with it's machineguns?
You missed the point I was trying to make. I can easily see people using the 190F as the primary offensive attacker (out of the dedicated attacker aircraft) because it offers the shortest transit times, and the greatest number of options for engagement and egress. The number of people that simply salvo of half of their rockets at one tank, or miss with all the rockets and drop the bomb, and motor for home would give us an indication of why they're using the 190F8; do they find its weapons more effective when on the offensive (due to the higher number of heavily-armored defensive tanks, and because of its ablity to quickly knock out enemy tanks), or are they simply using it because the IID, Il-2, and B-25H are too slow for them.
In addition to this, we would also get an indication of precisely why its killing more heavy units; is it a combination of higher probablity of encounter and heavier armament, which would indicate that its less because of the effectivness of the F8, and more because it simply has a greater chance to kill these heavies. Or is it being hauled out specificly because of the higher chance of encountering tanks like the Tiger II. Put simply, which came first, the chicken or the egg?
-
You missed the point I was trying to make.
I have to admit - I still do.
-
I'm saying that its possible the 190F8 is being used offensivly not because its weapons better suit it to offensive action, but that its speed (and better manuverablity compared to the Il-2 and 25H) simply make it more survivable when operating in a higher-risk enviornment.
How its being employed (at least semi-efficiently, or in a completly noobish and unskilled manner) will give us some indication of which it is. If most of the kills are gained by either salvoing off half or more of the rockets onto a single target (and possibly missing with the first salvo), or with the bomb after all the rockets missed, then this would tell us that most people are having difficulties with the weapons, and that a not inconsiderable precentage of its kills can be attributed to simple greater chance of encounter.
Also, are there higher numbers of skilled individuals to which a relatively high percentage of the kills can be attributed to when compared to the Il-2. Even better than its typical means of employment, this will tell us if the 190F8's value as a tank-buster really is equal to that of the Il-2 or IID for the average player.
-
Killing tanks with bombs and rockets is "noobish"?
Those are the tools the Fw190F-8 has to work with.
Or are you suggesting that because people can't kill one tank per rocket they are "noobish"?
The Il-2 is better for killing Panzer IVs and such, but for the tough tanks the Fw190F-8 packs more punch.
-
Killing tanks with bombs and rockets is "noobish"?
Those are the tools the Fw190F-8 has to work with.
Or are you suggesting that because people can't kill one tank per rocket they are "noobish"?
The Il-2 is better for killing Panzer IVs and such, but for the tough tanks the Fw190F-8 packs more punch.
No, I'm suggesting that just setting the salvo to 6+ rockets, and adjusting the delay for a 'shotgun' effect is noobish, or at the very least it is a method for the unskilled. Before I left, I was to where I could achieve kills with a 3 rocket salvo per tank.
Whats even worse is when they savlo off 6 at a time, miss with both salvos, and then use the bomb as a last resort weapon.
-
Firing all the rockets in one salvo is historically accurate, at least for Typhoons.
Who cares if they fire all ten rockets at once.
-
No, I'm suggesting that just setting the salvo to 6+ rockets, and adjusting the delay for a 'shotgun' effect is noobish, or at the very least it is a method for the unskilled.
This is the exact historical method for the Panzerblitz rocket as it was not prcision weapon. In fact, it's somewhat 'gamey' that we are able to shoot them one by one.
-
Firing all the rockets in one salvo is historically accurate, at least for Typhoons.
Who cares if they fire all ten rockets at once.
It shows that they are unable to get kills on a regular basis with less rockets. This indicates they are having some difficulties with the rockets, which might mean that its kills are just due to a higher likelyhood of encounter.
And Lusche, IIRC, they fired salvos of 4 rockets off. Might be wrong though.
-
Recommended setting as per report by III/ SG4 to the 3. Fliegerdivision from March 45 was either 6 or 12 rockets per salvo. One month earlier standard recommended setting was 6 rockets or possibly 4 when little defense was encountered, but as Soviets got used to these kind of attacks the salvo size had to be increased
-
Interesting stat lusche, not once in a year have I been killed by a 190F while tanking, given the odds that's amazing.
-
Interesting stat lusche, not once in a year have I been killed by a 190F while tanking, given the odds that's amazing.
Not that amazing if you consider the fact that there's been a total 460,000 Air-to-Ground kills in 2011 (and about 1,800,000 GV deaths all together).
Statistically spoken, the chances of being killed by a 190F or a HurriD (both with about 4800 ground kills each) are quite small ;)
In pure number of GV kills (all of them, not just tanks), the 190F and the Hurri D ended up rank #27 and #28. The A-20 had about 10 times more kills than each of them.
-
I used the190F-8 as a tank killer and had four kills in two sorties with a total of 24 rockets fired. Much better than I expected.
-
I would like to request the 190F-8/U1. It would be really simple to add, as all it would require is adding a pair of 250kg eggs and DT's for the wings.
I imagine it would be implemented simmilar to the loadout options for the M3 (ie, all options on one rack), as they only carried a 250kg egg on the centerline when they had 2 250's on the wing, not the 500kg egg like our current biggest bomb for the F8.
While it wouldn't significantly increase the ordnance carrying capacity of the F-8 (only 50kg, or ~110lbs more), but what it would do is increase the number of usefull bombs carried. In most cases, a 250kg bomb is preferable to 4 50kg bombs.
So overall, we gain a lot of versatility that the F-8 has been a bit lacking in, all for a minimal ammount of work, and we lose nothing in exchange. Lot of benefit, no down sides.
(+1, duh, but) Why the ordnance restriction and added complication? Not saying it should or shouldn't, but it would be a simpler/quicker modification to the current model. And there have been discussions before in this forum along similar lines where such "overloading" is overlooked (IE: 1000lbers and rockets sumultaneously on one single wing of certain ac)
-
Strictly speaking, I believe HTC don't have the info they need/want for the 4x50kg centerline rack. They asked for some info from the community back when the 109s were being redone, but didn't get what they wanted. That's why our 109E has no bombrack options and possibly why our 109F is a pure fighter.
Since it is the same rack, and they are still lacking what they want/need to know, it stands to reason that's why it's not an option on the Fw190F-8 either. I presume/guess that if/when it's ever added to the 109s, it will be added to the 190s at the same time. It won't require a new variant, and would just be a loadout option on the planes we already have.
Strictly speaking, though, 50kg outboard are pretty useless, even against towns. You need salvos of them. Nice to have as an option, but a single 250kg is better because you'd have to drop 2x 50kg anyway to get a kill on any building, and the 1 bomb packs more than the 2 lesser ones.
-
The 109E has a bomb rack now. It can lug around a 250kg egg, just like the rest of them.
-
Yes, I mis-spoke. I meant it doesn't have that 4x50kg bomb rack I was talking about. Thanks for the clarifying note.
-
Strictly speaking, I believe HTC don't have the info they need/want for the 4x50kg centerline rack. They asked for some info from the community back when the 109s were being redone, but didn't get what they wanted. That's why our 109E has no bombrack options and possibly why our 109F is a pure fighter.
Since it is the same rack, and they are still lacking what they want/need to know, it stands to reason that's why it's not an option on the Fw190F-8 either. I presume/guess that if/when it's ever added to the 109s, it will be added to the 190s at the same time. It won't require a new variant, and would just be a loadout option on the planes we already have.
Strictly speaking, though, 50kg outboard are pretty useless, even against towns. You need salvos of them. Nice to have as an option, but a single 250kg is better because you'd have to drop 2x 50kg anyway to get a kill on any building, and the 1 bomb packs more than the 2 lesser ones.
Hmmm, I know a certain old geister thats been brushing up on his high school german and has a mound of luft ord documentation he thumbs through just for a bedtime story.
Getting sick or retirement yet Bustr? (we luv u!)
What type of specific documentation on this would be needed/desired if it can be found? Aircraft performance? Manufacture/distribution?
Edit: Thinking of it, I'd be surprisd if HTC really needs it since they very likely probabley have it and have looked over it at least once.
-
Look up the ancient discussions before the 109 was redone. It may have been Pyro asking about it. It was his famous
signal ........ NOISE
comment. His or whomever's. I don't recall exactly what info they wanted, sorry.
-
Look up the ancient discussions before the 109 was redone. It may have been Pyro asking about it. It was his famous
signal ........ NOISE
comment. His or whomever's. I don't recall exactly what info they wanted, sorry.
It was this thread:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,162110.45.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,162110.45.html)
Your personal contribution was 11 irrelevant posts. Then Pyro deleted his original question.
Your Coup de grāce (post 12) was:
Also sorry... I seemed to have gotten confused and then made the thread confused along with me.
I understand totally if these guys don't answer any modelling questions any more.
-
It was this thread:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,162110.45.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,162110.45.html)
Your personal contribution was 11 irrelevant posts. Then Pyro deleted his original question.
Your Coup de grāce (post 12) was:
I understand totally if these guys don't answer any modelling questions any more.
I think most of us understand that, although it should be noted that while HTC does pick and choose their battles carefuly, compared to other similar companies, they're very outgoing and supportive. I wouldn't say they don't answer modelling questions or at any point have, but to sum it up well, in regards to specificly this thread and topic:
You obviously don't understand the gravity of the situation. 190 threads are no laughing matter, they're serious business!
Wiley.
So, until we get 6-more 190 varients, including at the least a "Finnish V-day 190" version, I wouldn't touch a 190 thread with a 50-foot pole if I were them.
(spaking of which, now that the dust has settled, who is it that handed Skuzzy the cattle prod, pointed him at the nearest 190 thread, and dared him a few weeks ago? Pyro? :devil )
-
Neither 109 nor 190 had a 4x50kg centerline rack. The 50kg bombs were held by the ER4 adapter which was plugged into/held by the ETC 500 series centerline rack. Every German bomb-capable aircraft with the ETC 500 series rack could also carry the ER4 adapter and 4x50kg bombs.