Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Tank-Ace on October 02, 2012, 07:48:22 PM
-
I propose that for our next addition (unless of course HTC were getting close to finish a current project ;)), we get an updated ordnance system.
Essentially, if an ordnance package blocks another from being carried, the ones being blocked would become greyed out in the selection screen. It would possibly ease nagivation of the loadout-selection for newer players, and would also allow us to expand out current ordnance options.
Greyed out selections could still be clicked, but one of two things would happen when you do:
1) the selection that prevents the clicked-on item from being carried would be removed from the airframe (grey-out would have to be made very obvious in that case).
2) a pop-up saying "you cannot carry both 'Selection A' and 'Selection B' simultaneously'.
Along with the new loadout system (one would think it would be fairly simple to code), I would enjoy seeing some updated ordnance options.
1) 250kg bomb for the 109F-4.
2) 300L wing DT's for the 190A-5 (as on the A5/U8. Would use the new system, only the 2 20mm option was used with them).
3) 4x 50kg centerline mount for the 190F8
4) 1x 1000kg bomb option for the F-8
5) And the two SC 250 wing racks for the 190F-8, which would block all other options. Could carry 2 250kg bombs, or 2 500kg bombs.
6) Bazooka tube rockets for the P-51D
7) 2000lb bombs for the F4U-1D
-
Why do you wish it to be more restrictive?
HiTech
-
Because certain ordnance options weren't carried in combination with eachother, and this would allow us to represent that.
For example, all evidence we've seen so far indicates the 190F-8 flew with a clean centerline if there was more than 500kg (combined) on the wings, or when wing DT's were used.
F4U-1D's, IIRC, didn't carry rockets if the 2000lb bombs were carried, even though they did not occupy the same position.
300L wing drop-tanks for the A-5/U8 is another good one. They removed the outboard cannons on the /U8, and then put the drop tanks on it. This would allow us to represent that model without requiring us to move the WGr 21's and wing tanks over to the gun selection column in a layout similar to that of the 110G.
We could also move the bombs on the 110 over to the centerline position, and get them off of the gun selection column this way. Doesn't affect the way the 110 is loaded per se, just it up a bit.
Basically, it would simply provide greater flexibility for representation of various ordnance combinations while maintaining the historical representation of the aircraft.
-
"Restrictive" is such a harsh term, kind Sir. ;) Perhaps the P51D has for too long been given an option it was never intended to have? Mounting dual 1k bombs and the six 5in rockets has always been debatable.
As far as the 190F-8 and the options it is missing in AH, I'd really like to see it have the 8/50kg bomb ability. Pictures have been posted here in the forums and I have a book showing that the 8/50kg bombs were an option. Also, I had forgotten about the 1000kg bomb load out option, that would also be a first and only fighter in AH to have a single 1000 kg (2200 lbs) bomb ability. Also, giving the 190F-8 even more of a differentiation from the rest of the 190's and German fighters would be nice. Giving it dual 250 kg or dual 500 kg bombs would bring even MORE diversity!
If they ordnance load outs were historically accurate then please at least consider adding it to AH. Thank you. :)
-
"Restrictive" is such a harsh term, kind Sir. ;) Perhaps the P51D has for too long been given an option it was never intended to have? Mounting dual 1k bombs and the six 5in rockets has always been debatable.
As far as the 190F-8 and the options it is missing in AH, I'd really like to see it have the 8/50kg bomb ability. Pictures have been posted here in the forums and I have a book showing that the 8/50kg bombs were an option. Also, I had forgotten about the 1000kg bomb load out option, that would also be a first and only fighter in AH to have a single 1000 kg (2200 lbs) bomb ability. Also, giving the 190F-8 even more of a differentiation from the rest of the 190's and German fighters would be nice. Giving it dual 250 kg or dual 500 kg bombs would bring even MORE diversity!
If they ordnance load outs were historically accurate then please at least consider adding it to AH. Thank you. :)
51 is not debatable, no evidence was found it ever carried the 1k's and rockets. Unless 10 books on it are wrong, all I can see as it flew in Korea with that loadout.
190F should get the 4x 50KG bomb rack, not sure if the entire 190 needs to be updated for this? not sure..
As for the 250kg bombs on the wings, the 190F did not carry these, only the 190G.
Only thing the G model did get from the F was the 4x 50kg bombs under the center line, and the 250kg and 500kg however it did not carry any ords on the wings or drop tanks (Im guessing the rack was hampering enough) not sure exactly why it was limited to just the 4x bombs, maybe perhaps drop tanks were added I haven't found any photos to support it.
F model was a close support aircraft, G was a long range strike fighter.
I really don't see anyone flying a G model, other then it being historically accurate in game for long range strikes.
The 190G3 which is the 1943 variant is the most numerous version is based on the 190A-5
Edited: I was trying to look up some information and it seems the F-8 model actually could hold up to 1000kg bomb or 1800kg bomb... I don't have any information or material to support an F-8 ever carried this size of a bomb.
I'd have to go through all my books to find this out.
-
+1
Would love to see more of the 250lb & 500lbs bomb options on attackers being used... :aok
Also perhaps this could open the way to a perked ordinance system too? For the few, the rare and the weird? ;)
-
51 is not debatable, no evidence was found it ever carried the 1k's and rockets. Unless 10 books on it are wrong, all I can see as it flew in Korea with that loadout.
190F should get the 4x 50KG bomb rack, not sure if the entire 190 needs to be updated for this? not sure..
As for the 250kg bombs on the wings, the 190F did not carry these, only the 190G.
Only thing the G model did get from the F was the 4x 50kg bombs under the center line, and the 250kg and 500kg however it did not carry any ords on the wings or drop tanks (Im guessing the rack was hampering enough) not sure exactly why it was limited to just the 4x bombs, maybe perhaps drop tanks were added I haven't found any photos to support it.
F model was a close support aircraft, G was a long range strike fighter.
I really don't see anyone flying a G model, other then it being historically accurate in game for long range strikes.
The 190G3 which is the 1943 variant is the most numerous version is based on the 190A-5
Edited: I was trying to look up some information and it seems the F-8 model actually could hold up to 1000kg bomb or 1800kg bomb... I don't have any information or material to support an F-8 ever carried this size of a bomb.
I'd have to go through all my books to find this out.
Do you mean the base F-8, or are you including various Umrüst-Bausatz kits?
The various Fw 190F-8/Ux are not different aircraft, but simply factory modifications. Many of our options on the German aircraft (including various gun options) are Umrüst-Bausatz or Rustaze kits.
-
Has anyone ever verified if for each one of these kits, factory or feild installed. Will a new coded aircraft have to be created for some, due to performance changes greater than the current code fixed models tollerances?
Do we know if your vision of updated ordnance is the same as the perked ordnance HTC has mentioned in the past they would like to eventualy introduce?
-
No changes made to engine output on most kits as far as I can see. Same goes for most other aircraft as well.
Occationally, you'll run into those bomber-buster kits that were cleared for higher ata levels than the standard aircraft, just to help deal with the extra weights. But those appear to be exceptions to the rule.
-
I'd love to see 1000lbers perked for fighters that can carry more than one. Simply to see more small and medium bombers come into play.
-
Tank ace, haven't u not played In yrs or months... And more options +1 more restrictions -1.
-
Tank ace, haven't u not played In yrs or months... And more options +1 more restrictions -1.
Check PM, and why -1 for restrictions?
If the 190F-8 didn't carry 2 500kg bombs on the wings and a 1000kg bomb on the centerline in real life, why should it be able to do so in Aces High?
-
Many of you are forgetting that in the field, they often piled on ordnance beyond safe recommendations. Some of them even made their own release mechanisms or safeties to prevent the extra weight from damaging the aircraft itself.
-
Check PM, and why -1 for restrictions?
If the 190F-8 didn't carry 2 500kg bombs on the wings and a 1000kg bomb on the centerline in real life, why should it be able to do so in Aces High?
it cant carry 2 500 on wing and 1000 on wing now either
-
Updating the ord system would allow us to add both options though, which is the point.
Without first updating the ord system to allow the restriction of specific loadout combinations, we'd be essntially saying "haha, f*** you history".
@ Delierium, IIRC, many of the Rustaze kits were adapted from some of the more common field modifications.
However, if it wasn't official, I agree with HTC that it should't be put in; too many unknowns in most of the cases, and then you get the problem of losing the clean line between whats allowed and whats not.
-
I've always thought a perked ordnance system that Pyro described a few years ago was a great idea who's time has come. This way I could lug 2,000 pound bombs on my P-38 and maybe even a 3,000 pounder for the occasional attack sortie. The Corsair guys would be able to lug a 2,000 pound bomb on the centerline with two 1,000 pounders under each wing.
ack-ack
-
I always thought that the 190F8 had the ability to carry 2 large bombs on the wings, but I've never seen a photo of it doing so. :(
-
I always thought that the 190F8 had the ability to carry 2 large bombs on the wings, but I've never seen a photo of it doing so. :(
No, 190F's only carried 50kg's on the wings, it did not carry anything larger, not even a 500kg centerline with 50kg's on the wings.
190G's only carried a pair of 250kg bombs on the wings, nothing centerline. If you want a centerline bomb you get no wing bombs.
Only time F/G models carried bombs centerline and wings is when they are only 50kg.
-
I'd have to dig into it, but I am can't recall ever reading about a Mossie VI carrying rockets under the wings and bombs in the bomb bay. I recall seeing rockets or rockets plus a long range tank in the bomb bay or two 500lb bombs in the bomb bay or two 500lb bombs in the bomb bay and a 500lb bomb under each wing or a 500lb bomb under each wing and a long range tank in the bomb bay.
For the Mossie XVI I have not heard of it carrying the 'cookie' and underwing 500lb bombs at the same time.
I'd need to dig deeper before I could say anything for sure though.
-
No, 190F's only carried 50kg's on the wings, it did not carry anything larger, not even a 500kg centerline with 50kg's on the wings.
190G's only carried a pair of 250kg bombs on the wings, nothing centerline. If you want a centerline bomb you get no wing bombs.
Only time F/G models carried bombs centerline and wings is when they are only 50kg.
Not sure about the 500kg center +50kgs on the wings Butch. At the very least, they could carry 4 50's plus a 250kg. Minimum.
Either way, point is that we need to expand ordnacne options, particularly for planes like the 190F8 that had a wide range of weapons that it used.
-
Because certain ordnance options weren't carried in combination with eachother, and this would allow us to represent that.
For example, all evidence we've seen so far indicates the 190F-8 flew with a clean centerline if there was more than 500kg (combined) on the wings, or when wing DT's were used.
F4U-1D's, IIRC, didn't carry rockets if the 2000lb bombs were carried, even though they did not occupy the same position.
300L wing drop-tanks for the A-5/U8 is another good one. They removed the outboard cannons on the /U8, and then put the drop tanks on it. This would allow us to represent that model without requiring us to move the WGr 21's and wing tanks over to the gun selection column in a layout similar to that of the 110G.
We could also move the bombs on the 110 over to the centerline position, and get them off of the gun selection column this way. Doesn't affect the way the 110 is loaded per se, just it up a bit.
Basically, it would simply provide greater flexibility for representation of various ordnance combinations while maintaining the historical representation of the aircraft.
Very well put Tank-Ace, not so much increased restriction is desired, but some increased flexibility/options would be attractive. Greater reward for those who go the extra effort would also be an attractive reward. As others have mentioned, many things currently being destroyed with 1k bombs by the freighter-full in the LWMA can be done with a single 250lb bomb. But the reward for doing so does not seem to outweigh or be attractive enough to diswade you from selecting a 1k bomb for the next radar dropping sortie you launch.
-
Not sure about the 500kg center +50kgs on the wings Butch. At the very least, they could carry 4 50's plus a 250kg. Minimum.
I showed the ords list for the 190F and G models. None carried a 250kg centerline with 4x50s.
-
Babs,
If players were "dissuaded" from using the 1000lb bomb as the default ordnance for everything. How long with lesser bombs would it take to capture feilds, stop GV attacks, or drop a CV?
The ability to hump 1000 pounder bombs and jettison to fight if bounced on the way, is far more attractive than being forced into medium bombers. Even though 10-12 boxes of B26 as the core of NOE missons a long time ago guaranteed a closed down airfeild with few losses. When is the last time anyone put up a mission with B26 that they could get more than 2-4 pilots? Especially if they included the 51D with 2-1000lb bombs.
It's not like we fly real distances with 2-1000lb bombs. Depending on the perspective, game play is more attractive showing up with 12 - P51D and 24,000lb of bombs than 12 - B26 boxes and 144,000lb of bombs to flatten an airfeild. You cannot furball with the B26, CAP the field to vulch, or runStang home when your nerve is weak. It dosen't fill your perk bank towards flying 262, and landing bomber score is just not as sexy as "WooWoo landed 3 kills in a P51D of Boy Geroge's Heros".
I'm not sure perking ord can force players to fly aircraft they don't feel safe in. Human nature would be to cry in here about the big bad Hitech meanie and the stuck up cadre of forum HTC woowoo kissers, then up P51D with 2-500lb bombs. In the end it's whatever HTC sees as a viable choice to keep the doors open and the light bill paid.
Been a long time since GETSOME's epic 20 - B26 boxes and 20 - P38 NOE raids. He could make a greek sailor blush when he screamed on channel, which unfortunatly was almost all the time. But, he rolled bases long before Dogfite and his vTards knew the game existed. He understood what to use a medium bomber for. Fast lightening raids delivering large amounts of ordnance quickly from medium to low atltitudes. Gotta wonder if unperking the Lancaster really contributed to the demise of the medium bomber in the MA. I see it flown in that roll all the time. Maybe the A26 should be introduced to compete with the P51D as a medium bomber vulching machine? Then perk 1000lb bombs for fighters....... :D
-
Babs,
If players were "dissuaded" from using the 1000lb bomb as the default ordnance for everything. How long with lesser bombs would it take to capture feilds, stop GV attacks, or drop a CV?
The ability to hump 1000 pounder bombs and jettison to fight if bounced on the way, is far more attractive than being forced into medium bombers. Even though 10-12 boxes of B26 as the core of NOE missons a long time ago guaranteed a closed down airfeild with few losses. When is the last time anyone put up a mission with B26 that they could get more than 2-4 pilots? Especially if they included the 51D with 2-1000lb bombs.
It's not like we fly real distances with 2-1000lb bombs. Depending on the perspective, game play is more attractive showing up with 12 - P51D and 24,000lb of bombs than 12 - B26 boxes and 144,000lb of bombs to flatten an airfeild. You cannot furball with the B26, CAP the field to vulch, or runStang home when your nerve is weak. It dosen't fill your perk bank towards flying 262, and landing bomber score is just not as sexy as "WooWoo landed 3 kills in a P51D of Boy Geroge's Heros".
I'm not sure perking ord can force players to fly aircraft they don't feel safe in. Human nature would be to cry in here about the big bad Hitech meanie and the stuck up cadre of forum HTC woowoo kissers, then up P51D with 2-500lb bombs. In the end it's whatever HTC sees as a viable choice to keep the doors open and the light bill paid.
Been a long time since GETSOME's epic 20 - B26 boxes and 20 - P38 NOE raids. He could make a greek sailor blush when he screamed on channel, which unfortunatly was almost all the time. But, he rolled bases long before Dogfite and his vTards knew the game existed. He understood what to use a medium bomber for. Fast lightening raids delivering large amounts of ordnance quickly from medium to low atltitudes. Gotta wonder if unperking the Lancaster really contributed to the demise of the medium bomber in the MA. I see it flown in that roll all the time. Maybe the A26 should be introduced to compete with the P51D as a medium bomber vulching machine? Then perk 1000lb bombs for fighters....... :D
I'm not asking for it to prevent or restrict you from taking the 1,000lb bombs on your mission to bomb the closest standing enemy radar tower if that's what you want to use, I'm asking for it to promote the use of smaller bombs on targets that they are perfectly suited for destroying.
Currently the ENY system I already believe does take into account the size of the ordnance you dropped on a target when calculating up your score/perk-reward, but it is just not enough to diswade the next five radars from being dropped in the game with 1,000lb bombs when a 500lber is already overkill and a single 250lber dropped nicely will net the attacker the same results with greater gain... Is the incentive/gain maybe just not enough? Perhaps some new multiplier is needed?
-
I'm not asking for it to prevent or restrict you from taking the 1,000lb bombs on your mission to bomb the closest standing enemy radar tower if that's what you want to use, I'm asking for it to promote the use of smaller bombs on targets that they are perfectly suited for destroying.
Currently the ENY system I already believe does take into account the size of the ordnance you dropped on a target when calculating up your score/perk-reward, but it is just not enough to diswade the next five radars from being dropped in the game with 1,000lb bombs when a 500lber is already overkill and a single 250lber dropped nicely will net the attacker the same results with greater gain... Is the incentive/gain maybe just not enough? Perhaps some new multiplier is needed?
i'm pretty sure the eny system doesn't give a crap about the size of the bomb, but more to the point, isn't the performance penalty enough? a pony hefting 2x1000 is a dog.
-
I showed the ords list for the 190F and G models. None carried a 250kg centerline with 4x50s.
I guarantee I've seen a 190 loaded with the centerline bomb, and the 4 wing racks. One would think that those would be removed when not in use, due to the not inconsiderable drag caused.
Also, you posted a list of loadouts carried by the 190F-8 and G. So what?
P-51 loadouts:
2x 1000lb bombs
2x 1000lb boms and 6 HVAR rockets
2x 500lb bombs and 4 honey-cured hams
1x Christmas Tree and asstd. ornaments
32x 1lb dumbbells.
There, I posted a list. Doesn't mean it nessicarily has anything to do with reality though, see what I mean?
Not that I think you're lying or intentionally misleading us, but photos seem to suggest your list is at least incomplete, and your list is not the difinitive source of information that we must adhere to.
Also, not sure if it saw combat or anything, but I have seen photos of the 190F-8 lugging a torp. IIRC, that wasn't on your list, and neither was the SC 1000.
-
i'm all for historical loadouts, and removing UNhistorical ones. However I am a fan of mixing and matching. For example this semi-heated debate about centerline bomb with wing bombs. OPERATIONALLY they had different needs. Operationally you either had lots of small eggs for soft targets or you took 1/2 eggs a long distance needing DTs. However, if the need arose there was no such limitation on taking 3 bombs a short distance.
They didn't fly the same mission profile WE do in this game. So as long as it's historically accurate in each part, I have no problem mixing and matching. The key is they have to be realistic before you mix and match.
I.e. no mustang 10 rockets from Korea, and so forth.
As a P.S. There's a reason they built the F-8 but no G-8 with the FW190. The two lines diverged early on for ground attack and long-range. However by the time of the F-8 both roles had reconverged so the same airframes were able to perform both duties as needed. They simply planned on using F-8s to do it all. The same mounting points and racks that the 190G had, the 109F could also carry, by the time of 1944's F-8 variant.
P.P.S:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-18czMmIt_1U/Tgl8Y9UgmPI/AAAAAAAABVA/NJz_Qruml98/s1600/focke-wulf-fw-190-g-fighter-1.jpg)
FYI the 79 gal DT weighs 474 lbs already. The bomb weigh almost half. It's not a matter of being overloaded. You'd weigh LESS with all-bombs, than with DTs in the mix. You're just mixing up necessity with capability.
-
No, 190F's only carried 50kg's on the wings, it did not carry anything larger, not even a 500kg centerline with 50kg's on the wings.
190G's only carried a pair of 250kg bombs on the wings, nothing centerline. If you want a centerline bomb you get no wing bombs.
Only time F/G models carried bombs centerline and wings is when they are only 50kg.
Not exactly. See my previous post, but specifically:
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=340213.0;attach=15996;image)
There was no structural limits dictating why you don't see that setup much. They just needed smaller loads for most sorties, but it was a perfectly valid setup, as seen on these F-3s taking off for a sortie.
EDIT: Cowl bulge... They may be F-8s. Caption said F-3s. Either way.
-
I'd have to dig into it, but I am can't recall ever reading about a Mossie VI carrying rockets under the wings and bombs in the bomb bay. I recall seeing rockets or rockets plus a long range tank in the bomb bay or two 500lb bombs in the bomb bay or two 500lb bombs in the bomb bay and a 500lb bomb under each wing or a 500lb bomb under each wing and a long range tank in the bomb bay.
For the Mossie XVI I have not heard of it carrying the 'cookie' and underwing 500lb bombs at the same time.
I'd need to dig deeper before I could say anything for sure though.
That would make sense regarding the Mossi B 16. The 4000 lb cookie and the 2/500 lb bombs would be for 2 very different targets. I'm almost thinking it should be the 4000 lb cookie OR the 500 lb bombs, not a mix. Good point on the Mossi FB 6 too, the target type would be 2 very different things for the rockets and bombs.
-
190F-8trop 4 50 and 1 sc500
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/190-f8tropetc50sandetc501.jpg)
I like the perk ords idea. I could have my gondies on the 109f-4
-
i'm pretty sure the eny system doesn't give a crap about the size of the bomb, but more to the point, isn't the performance penalty enough? a pony hefting 2x1000 is a dog.
And yet it is the plane of choice for the horde monkeys. Explain that. :)
-
Also, the 2 1000lb bombs doesn't quite make you a dog. You don't wanna turn fight or anything, but when i flew the P-51, I never had a problem with BnZing, or making slash attacks.
And nice find Megalodon. Wish the Germans had been more trigger-happy with the cameras.
Anyway, that pretty much blows apart Butcher's assertation that no such load out was ever carried. Also proves for a fact that his list is incomplete.
I rest my case.
-
And nice find Megalodon.
And you ignore the 2 pics I posted before him showing both a 190G loaded with 3 bombs (wings and centerline) and the same loadout as he did, but with 2 planes?
Ooookay... :bolt:
-
Anyway, that pretty much blows apart Butcher's assertation that no such load out was ever carried. Also proves for a fact that his list is incomplete.
This would have served the same purpose :frown:
190F
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/190-f8sc50sanddt300L.jpg)
-
And you ignore the 2 pics I posted before him showing both a 190G loaded with 3 bombs (wings and centerline) and the same loadout as he did, but with 2 planes?
Ooookay... :bolt:
You said they were possibly F-8's, probably F-3's! If its not known what model of 190F it is, how can we say it for sure proves Butcher's list is incomplete?
*EDIT* Sorry, I missed your earlier picture. And that essentially shot Butcher's theory that 3 large bombs weren't carried on either the F-8/G simultaniously.
And as a plus, on your second picturem those appear to be SC 250's on the wings (~550lbs) and an SC 500 (~1100lbs) on the centerline!
2000lbs of Ordnance, and distributed into a better package than the P-51 can carry in bombs alone.
-
You said they were possibly F-8's, probably F-3's! If its not known what model of 190F it is, how can we say it for sure proves Butcher's list is incomplete?
*EDIT* Sorry, I missed your earlier picture. And that essentially shot Butcher's theory that 3 large bombs weren't carried on either the F-8/G simultaniously.
.
Look up a5u3 and a5u8 :cheers:
-
Model version doesn't matter. Anything the F-3 could carry, the F-8 could carry and more. It still proves him wrong several times over, along with Megalodon's pictures.
-
Model version doesn't matter. Anything the F-3 could carry, the F-8 could carry and more. It still proves him wrong several times over, along with Megalodon's pictures.
Well, I think its more of a question of did it rather than could it.
Also, does anyone know what (if any) the preformance differences between the F and G models were?
-
Weight and other small loadout differences.
The Gs stripped cowl guns, had no outboard, had less armor (I think) than the Fs, and the main difference was the piping to the wing mounts for DTs. However, the individual modifications were also available for the F line. By the time of the F-8, there wasn't really a 190G line anymore. The A and F lines were doing those same jobs.
-
Anyway, that pretty much blows apart Butcher's assertation that no such load out was ever carried. Also proves for a fact that his list is incomplete.
I rest my case.
Actually I have sourced information, where you have absolutely no source period other then wikipedia mmmkay? I go by actual books with sourced information, you champ? Lets not discredit someone when you have absolutely no source to make a claim period.
Back to actual topic -
I think for historical reasons - if the C.205 cannot get a drop tank in Aces high even though it was available and simply not used, why should a 190F/G be allowed a larger load when the Field manual for a 190 has no mention period of a 3 bombload. It goes through 20 different setups and not once does it mention a 190F/G carrying 3 ords. Field manual shows the Mk103 setups, Mk-108s, 4x 20mm gun pods under the wings, bombloads etc, nothing mentions the 3 bombs.
And this is coming from the actual Fw 190 Technical Armaments Manual Focke - Wulf Flugzeugbau G.m.b.H. Bremen - which by the way lists the Mk103 gun package far more then a few times, which leads to believe it was more common.
-
Many of you are forgetting that in the field, they often piled on ordnance beyond safe recommendations. Some of them even made their own release mechanisms or safeties to prevent the extra weight from damaging the aircraft itself.
I was under assumption field modifications were not allowed in Aces High. Which is why I am totally against non historical loadouts, maybe as a Perk option.... If someone wants to load down a B-17 with 8,000lbs then all for it if they want to pay the perks.
-
I was under assumption field modifications were not allowed in Aces High.
Currently the only aircraft in AH with a field mod is the P51B's canopy.
-
Actually I have sourced information, where you have absolutely no source period other then wikipedia mmmkay? I go by actual books with sourced information, you champ? Lets not discredit someone when you have absolutely no source to make a claim period.
We have pictures there, junior. If I'm not mistaken, that counts as documentation.
You claimed no such loadout was carried by an F or G model 190. Pictures prove you are wrong on that account.
On the question of field mods, carrying 3 bombs is not a field mod. Think about it; the 190 was cleared for using both the ETC 500 centerline rack and ETC 250 wing racks. Therefore they are both historical loadouts. However, simply putting both on the aircraft does not constitue a field mod, as it is not changing the aircraft in an unofficial way. They simply overloaded the aircraft, although still not beyond its maximum take-off weight. They haven't put anything on the aircraft it wasn't cleared to use either.
Therefore 3 bombs is not a field mod.
You questioned wether or not bombs were carried on all 3 racks simultaneously, we've shown proof that they were.
-
You questioned wether or not bombs were carried on all 3 racks simultaneously, we've shown proof that they were.
Field manual shows otherwise, just because you could load 3 bombs junior, doesn't mean it did carry the load. Why would the Focke-Wulf armaments Technical manual say otherwise? Or maybe they just decided to leave that part out - or simply because there's a good reason it didn't carry 3 bombs.
Just because you could doesn't mean they did.
Photo don't have any information on them, for all we know it was for testing or combat but again there's no proof... what information do we have other then a photo? No technical period information, the FW tech manual says otherwise. Unless there is proof it was in combat it could of simply been for testing. Big difference.
I can show proof 190F/G's flew with 8x 50kg bombs, I can show all specifications and details on a dozen different armament configurations, same with pair of 250kg's on the wings, or a 500kg under the centerline, but no book or manual I have will show any regards to a 190 carrying all 3 ords.
Show me technical proof it was a loadout option. Before you debunk a claim make sure you actually have a clue what you are talking about first, I scoured the manuals long enough to show otherwise, you can at least show me where they made it a standard option.
Oh and by your logic, 1 photo is absolutely proof to you? LOL.
(http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/images/do335cs_1.jpg)
Oh look, Luftwaffe markings, it must of served in the war and in combat!
-
The individual components are all cleared for use. No unauthorized modifications were nessecary to allow 3 bombs to be loaded.
Therefore, its not a field mod. Its just overloading the plane beyond typical combat weights, but not over maximum take-off weight.
We have photographic proof showing 3 bombs were carried.
As for technical data we have combat flaps restricted or allowed based on an ambiguous suggestion in a manual. The wording does not explicitly say whether or not it was possible, and barely even hints at whether or not it actually should not have been done. The wording essentially says "if you drop flaps at high speeds, you could potentially damage the flaps, or the aircraft, and that there is a possiblity of black-out due to the sudden increase in G's".
We don't have photographic evidence of the D model jugs carrying 2500lbs of bombs, and 10 HVAR rockets. But apparently a manual says it could therefore it did?
Now, which is it; do we need just technical data, do we need just photographs, or do we need both? IIRC, you've also objected to the C.205 having bombs and DT's based on a lack of photographic evidence.
And yes, 1 photo inarguably proves that what is shown in the photograph existed. Period. We have multiple photographs showing 3 bombs loaded on a 190, one picture showing 2 of them in flight.
Furthermore, I've stoped arguing for the 3x loadout if you'd pull your head out of your arse long enough to notice. I've done so due to a lack of evidence.
So, a friendly word of advice son, you might wanna get your story strait before your open your mouth.
-
Back to actual topic -
I think for historical reasons - if the C.205 cannot get a drop tank in Aces high even though it was available and simply not used
Actually the C.202s operating from a certain region had a general order signed allowing the use of drop tanks due to the range of their missions. Since the C.205 was integrated into C.202 units there's no real reason the DT isn't available in-game.
We're not talking some experimental weapons system here. We're not talking 20mms on a P-40, or 20mm gondolas on a P-47. We're talking weapons that were used in combat in this thread, on combat tested hardpoints.
P.S. Drop tanks weigh MORE than bombs. You're not OVERLOADING it with 3 bombs. You're loading it less than the DT/bomb combo, even.
-
We don't have photographic evidence of the D model jugs carrying 2500lbs of bombs, and 10 HVAR rockets. But apparently a manual says it could therefore it did?
So, a friendly word of advice son, you might wanna get your story strait before your open your mouth.
Re: Fiat G.55/l
« Reply #42 on: June 28, 2012, 11:22:24 PM »
Quote
Quote from: Tank-Ace on June 28, 2012, 10:58:04 PM
I think he meant it would be interesting to see both options for the G.55, simmilar to the 7mm guns in the wings of the C202 and 205.
Difference is I seen photos of both options in the G.55, I cannot show proof c202/205 had different options, then again this thread is about the G.55 which had both series in combat.
I can prove the C.205 had drop tanks in combat, although the handful of 2-3 photos have circulated the internet for years, its not exactly 100% proof, however what else can anyone go on since there is no actual proof or data, even then it was common in north africa, not afterwards.
Want to lose the 7mm option for the C202 and C.205 get your own thread for it, not the topic which says Fiat G.55, different aircraft and production model.
Your information is a little backwards Tank-ace, I never objected to the Drop tanks - I actually supported it since day one and hopign when it gets remodeled they are added along with c.202. I never mentioned bombs, thats all on you.
-
Actually the C.202s operating from a certain region had a general order signed allowing the use of drop tanks due to the range of their missions. Since the C.205 was integrated into C.202 units there's no real reason the DT isn't available in-game.
We're not talking some experimental weapons system here. We're not talking 20mms on a P-40, or 20mm gondolas on a P-47. We're talking weapons that were used in combat in this thread, on combat tested hardpoints.
P.S. Drop tanks weigh MORE than bombs. You're not OVERLOADING it with 3 bombs. You're loading it less than the DT/bomb combo, even.
i understand that Krusty, and I get your point - instead of having two wing drop tanks they can simply of taken bombs even with a center line bomb, however I am trying to find technical information to show if this was ever used. nothing but hear say so far, I am just trying to research and make sure its factual rather then hear say.
Its known 190s were tested with 1000kg and 1800kg bombs along with torpedoes, but I can't get any information on this period, is there any information to support it at all?
-
I can show proof 190F/G's flew with 8x 50kg bombs, I can show all specifications and details on a dozen different armament configurations, same with pair of 250kg's on the wings, or a 500kg under the centerline, but no book or manual I have will show any regards to a 190 carrying all 3 ords.
Please present this information as soon as possible, thanks. It will make great reading.
-
Please present this information as soon as possible, thanks. It will make great reading.
http://www.367thdynamitegang.com/upload/butch/fw190.rar (http://www.367thdynamitegang.com/upload/butch/fw190.rar)
Its a very Large Pdf file, enjoy :)
I'm working on getting a copy of the 109 series, should be quite interesting, ill forward it once i get it.
-
i understand that Krusty, and I get your point - instead of having two wing drop tanks they can simply of taken bombs even with a center line bomb, however I am trying to find technical information to show if this was ever used. nothing but hear say so far, I am just trying to research and make sure its factual rather then hear say.
Its known 190s were tested with 1000kg and 1800kg bombs along with torpedoes, but I can't get any information on this period, is there any information to support it at all?
I don't think it falls into the same category as 1000kg bombs and torpedoes.
Hitech has said he doesn't want to limit people in ways that they can combine weapons loadouts (re: discussion of P-51s with rockets AND bombs). The way I see it, they carried bombs on the wings. They carried bombs centerline. Hitech doesn't want to limit combinations. Therefore, as long as any one loadout is historically accurate, we ought to be able to mix and match in this game.
That's how I see it.
-
I don't think it falls into the same category as 1000kg bombs and torpedoes.
Hitech has said he doesn't want to limit people in ways that they can combine weapons loadouts (re: discussion of P-51s with rockets AND bombs). The way I see it, they carried bombs on the wings. They carried bombs centerline. Hitech doesn't want to limit combinations. Therefore, as long as any one loadout is historically accurate, we ought to be able to mix and match in this game.
That's how I see it.
Well that make sense, I don't know hitech's input I only assume its historical and seen combat. This argument can go 100 which ways, honestly I am no way against the 190 carrying 3 ords, for me it just means the 190 is sluggish, slow and will not maneuver. However I just want to make sure its historically accurate first.
Del had a great argument a while back, why don't the P-38 carry a single 2,000lb bomb in which they did... historically accurate, yet no thread was ever made on this.
-
I understand your point. I don't intend to pick on your or anything.
This may be a bit of a tangent, but I believe the P-38s carried a number of documented loadouts but all were literally field-mods with bolted-on external racks. I don't recall the issue with the 2000lb bomb specifically but it may have been similar.
I know there are some loadouts not present on other airframes, but I also know that sometimes HTC moves very slowly :D
Sometimes they don't, but for things like loadout additions it really can take ages to see new ones added. I figure folks will keep making their petitions for different craft and many discussions will be held over the years. Just like this thread. Just like C2 drop tanks. Just like P-38 bombs. Just like F4u tiny tims, etc.
-
This may be a bit of a tangent, but I believe the P-38s carried a number of documented loadouts but all were literally field-mods with bolted-on external racks. I don't recall the issue with the 2000lb bomb specifically but it may have been similar.
You are incorrect.
ack-ack
-
So be it. Like I said, I rememberd all the other racks bolted on, wasn't sure if the 2k egg was one of them.
-
Re: Fiat G.55/l
« Reply #42 on: June 28, 2012, 11:22:24 PM »
Quote
Quote from: Tank-Ace on June 28, 2012, 10:58:04 PM
I think he meant it would be interesting to see both options for the G.55, simmilar to the 7mm guns in the wings of the C202 and 205.
Difference is I seen photos of both options in the G.55, I cannot show proof c202/205 had different options, then again this thread is about the G.55 which had both series in combat.
I can prove the C.205 had drop tanks in combat, although the handful of 2-3 photos have circulated the internet for years, its not exactly 100% proof, however what else can anyone go on since there is no actual proof or data, even then it was common in north africa, not afterwards.
Want to lose the 7mm option for the C202 and C.205 get your own thread for it, not the topic which says Fiat G.55, different aircraft and production model.
Your information is a little backwards Tank-ace, I never objected to the Drop tanks - I actually supported it since day one and hopign when it gets remodeled they are added along with c.202. I never mentioned bombs, thats all on you.
Well, for one thing, that doesn't show you support DT's for the 202 and 205. All that shows is that in that one specific post, you didn't object to the Dt's on the 202/205.
And, again IIRC, it was more directed at the issue of the bombs on the c.205, of which we have some technical data saying such a loadout was possible and official, but no photographic evidence confirming it.
But either way, that doesn't invalidate my argument.
It wasn't a field mod, we have photographs confirming its use, therefore it should make it in, regardless of a lack of manuals saying such a loadout was possible. It clearly was, since it used the mountings in official loadouts, and we can confirm that it was carried.
The precedent for this being set by the fact that we have abiguities in other manuals that were ignored for AH.
-
Well, for one thing, that doesn't show you support DT's for the 202 and 205. All that shows is that in that one specific post, you didn't object to the Dt's on the 202/205.
And, again IIRC, it was more directed at the issue of the bombs on the c.205, of which we have some technical data saying such a loadout was possible and official, but no photographic evidence confirming it.
I've been a major supporter for past 6 years of upgrading the 202 and 205 to having Drop Tanks, a number of threads point this out, mostly because I want the G.55 added as a series 5 italian fighter.
There is data that shows it was equiped with 2x drop tanks - wikipedia says it carried 2x 350lb bombs on the wings, however nothing I have ever says it carried bombs, only DTs.
Maybe someone else can get that info, I have only 3 books on the italian airforce, so I can't exactly compare to other sources to verify it.
Wikipedia lists the Data from The Great Book of Fighters, while I don't have this book I can't tell where the actual numbers come from or what source they used.
-
Not a big history buff on the Italian stuff either. we'll have to find someone else with the stuff, then.
-
...circles, they keep on turning...