Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: TonyJoey on July 10, 2013, 10:56:34 PM
-
I'm reading through Osprey's Bf109 Aces of the Russian Front and it mentions Bf109's of JG51 serving in the ground attack role attacking Soviet Airfields near the onset of Barbarossa that carried four 50kg bombs or 2kg SD-2 Splitterbombe fragmentation bombs. This was in July of 1941, and here is a profile of 109F-2 with bombs loaded. I believe that the only major difference between the F-4 and F-2 was the 20mm hub cannon coming standard in the F-4 and would assume that F-4s would have the capability to carry 4 x 50kg bombs, but was unsure of the timeline of the 109F-2 and F-4 entering use and if F-4s were ever used in ground attack roles. Does anyone have any further information or photos of 109F-4s in ground attack configurations, and if so I think that by all means that those configurations should be added in game.
(http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/586/imv8.jpg)
-
All 109F models could carry either the 4 50kilo or 1 250 kilo bomb with associated rack. The difference between the F-2 and F-4 lay in a slightly more powerful engine, larger oil cooler, larger engine intake, and a redesign in the way the tail mated to the fuselage to strengthen the joint. The upgrade to the Mg 151/20mm while "standard" in the F-4, was already underway in the field on F-2's.
The AH 109F should have the ability to Jabo. Furthermore, the graphic texture for the 250 kilo rack in already included on the 109F bitmap. This means all that is needed is a change in the coding and the 109F could carry a bomb.
-
The 109F used to be able to carry a 250kg bomb and 20mm gondolas. For reasons unknown they were removed when the 109-series was updated.
-
The 109F used to be able to carry a 250kg bomb and 20mm gondolas. For reasons unknown they were removed when the 109-series was updated.
F4 with gondies!? :aok
-
Yup.
-
Only the 240 WNF-built F-4/R1 were able to carry Gondies because they had the attachment points and wiring for additional equipment.
-
F4 with gondies!? :aok
Noooooooooo! Why would you do that to such a beautiful aircraft!? :cry :huh
:P
-
Noooooooooo! Why would you do that to such a beautiful aircraft!? :cry :huh
:P
You don't remember the gondies on the F4?? you are a noob aren't you! :neener:
It was a sweet ride and with the way I shoot I needed those extra rounds.
:salute
-
The 109F used to be able to carry a 250kg bomb and 20mm gondolas. For reasons unknown they were removed when the 109-series was updated.
Because it was meant to represent an early F-4, just as the Spit V was changed to represent an early Spit V. There was no option for CMs to limit loadouts at that time so the only way to prevent the Allies from facing lat Bf109F-4s in their early Spit Vs/P-40s was to remove the option entirely. Same goes for the 30mm on the Bf109G-6.
Given that situation is no longer true it would be great to see the bombs and gondolas for the Bf109F-4 added back in and the 30mm option for the Bf109G-6 added back in.
Nothing can be done for the Spitfire V though. What it lost cannot be given back via hangar options.
-
Because it was meant to represent an early F-4, just as the Spit V was changed to represent an early Spit V. There was no option for CMs to limit loadouts at that time so the only way to prevent the Allies from facing lat Bf109F-4s in their early Spit Vs/P-40s was to remove the option entirely. Same goes for the 30mm on the Bf109G-6.
Given that situation is no longer true it would be great to see the bombs and gondolas for the Bf109F-4 added back in and the 30mm option for the Bf109G-6 added back in.
Nothing can be done for the Spitfire V though. What it lost cannot be given back via hangar options.
Yes the 30mm option would be awesome :aok
Noooooooooo! Why would you do that to such a beautiful aircraft!? :cry :huh
:P
G2 is still a better airframe :old:
-
I'm reading through Osprey's Bf109 Aces of the Russian Front and it mentions Bf109's of JG51 serving in the ground attack role attacking Soviet Airfields near the onset of Barbarossa that carried four 50kg bombs or 2kg SD-2 Splitterbombe fragmentation bombs. This was in July of 1941, and here is a profile of 109F-2 with bombs loaded. I believe that the only major difference between the F-4 and F-2 was the 20mm hub cannon coming standard in the F-4 and would assume that F-4s would have the capability to carry 4 x 50kg bombs, but was unsure of the timeline of the 109F-2 and F-4 entering use and if F-4s were ever used in ground attack roles. Does anyone have any further information or photos of 109F-4s in ground attack configurations, and if so I think that by all means that those configurations should be added in game.
(http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/586/imv8.jpg)
I'm under the impression that the G-6's were pressed in to ground attack mode more than any other 109 model. No? I'd like to see the 109G-6 become the utility plane it was in the war (ground attack, fighter, bomber hunter w/ 30mm).
Regarding the 50kg bombs, I'd REALLY REALLY REALLY like for HTC to model the 8/50kg ability on the 190F-8 and whichever 109 model actually used the 4/50kg bombs. Modeling the 190F-8 the capability to carry the 8/50kg bombs would certainly add something in to AH that were currently do not have: a single engine fighter with 8 bomb capability.
-
G2 is still a better airframe :old:
No! :old:
-
F4 with gondies!? :aok
Absolutely .. used to have them ... yes Obiwanjackeroff... here in this game :O ....Mater fact... 240 of them were made...from the factory... but we cant have those :cry
On the other hand ... maybe 12 TA-152H-0/1 were used operationally maybe 14... but we have that.... :neener: :rofl :rofl
:rolleyes:,
-
Absolutely .. used to have them ... yes Obiwanjackeroff... here in this game :O ....Mater fact... 240 of them were made...from the factory... but we cant have those :cry
On the other hand ... maybe 12 TA-152H-0/1 were used operationally maybe 14... but we have that.... :neener: :rofl :rofl
:rolleyes:,
59
-
Because it was meant to represent an early F-4, just as the Spit V was changed to represent an early Spit V.
OK, but the 109F always had the option to take a DT or bombs on the centerline.
Another fun option would be Galland's F-2 with MG FF/M cannon in the wings and cigar lighter in the cockpit.
-
Was the cigar lighter a factory authorized installation?
-
I would not think so, no ;)
-
But Crumpp says no modification to an a/c can be done without factory authorization.
-
59
No
-
But Crumpp says no modification to an a/c can be done without factory authorization.
Is Crumpp still around under a different avatar?
-
No
Yes. Well to be fair 56 because 3 are the 152-C models #600001-600002 are listed.
150001-150040
150158-150174
-
Yes. Well to be fair 56 because 3 are the 152-C models #600001-600002 are listed.
150001-150040
150158-150174
and A's and E's
to be fair operational and combat are different things... my mistake 12 to 14 in combat..
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/ta-152-Prototypes_zpsd84cfe0c.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/ta-152-production_zps350f84a3.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/ta-152-production-1_zps2f08e3f9.jpg)
12 h/0 made it to Erprobungskammando152 for testing
12 to Jg III/301 <---1st mission 12 planes attacked by 109's.. next mission 8 planes 2-4 replacements<protptypes>
20 leveled at Neuhausen waiting to be test flown
-
and A's and E's
to be fair operational and combat are different things... my mistake 12 to 14 in combat..
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/ta-152-Prototypes_zpsd84cfe0c.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/ta-152-production_zps350f84a3.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/ta-152-production-1_zps2f08e3f9.jpg)
12 h/0 made it to Erprobungskammando152 for testing
12 to Jg III/301 <---1st mission 12 planes attacked by 109's.. next mission 8 planes 2-4 replacements<protptypes>
20 leveled at Neuhausen waiting to be test flown
Well that source material omits planes/Wnr. that my source has.
Source is Hitchcock's "Focke-Wulf Ta-152"
-
Is Crumpp still around under a different avatar?
Don't think so. He has been absent from the boards he usually visits ever since he got pwnd and banned from the Banana board back in May.
-
Ok...
Oh and he also had a cigar holder for when he was using the oxygen mask. Need that modeled as well... :aok
-
Well that source material omits planes/Wnr. that my source has.
Source is Hitchcock's "Focke-Wulf Ta-152"
either way show me where they were all in combat...they wern't... I'll move my estimate up to 16 as I have found 2 more<test planes> delivered.
16 planes that were in combat if you can show me more please do. this is about kin to the Arsenal VG33. Only a few aircraft entered service at the end of the Battle of France, but there was not enough of them to constitute a full squadron.
Its really hard to understand why these planes are in the game with such low numbers 152 and 163 before some of the other planes with much much higher production. I guess its the neeto factor.
sources for the moment
"Focke Wulf 152:Story of the Luftwaffe's high altitude fighter"...Dietmar Harmann
"Focke Wulf TA-152" ........+4 puplications special edition
As far as the 109F karnak got it nerfed, karnak can get it back.
Simple,
-
As far as the 109F karnak got it nerfed, karnak can get it back.
How did I get it nerfed? I don't even recall suggesting any changes to it.
You might be able to accuse me with some accuracy on initiating the Spit V being nerfed, but that is all. As it is a Spit I doubt you care about that.
-
How did I get it nerfed? I don't even recall suggesting any changes to it.
You might be able to accuse me with some accuracy on initiating the Spit V being nerfed, but that is all. As it is a Spit I doubt you care about that.
Okay fine get the Vc back.... no reason not to have it now..... and the proper 109F-4 options willl magically reappear...Btw I'm sure the spitfire fans were completly stoked with that move ...I think the main 1 quit shortly after that :lol ...even if in name only...
:aok
-
Noooooooooo! Why would you do that to such a beautiful aircraft!? :cry :huh
:P
Do what? Have more options for it? That would be terrible.... :furious :mad:
:neener:
-
I have seen some requests for the Spit Vc to be returned, but not real hysterics and blame games.
I don't think the Spit Vc needs to be returned to the game. The Spit IX fills the 1942 hole for the Spits just fine. The only new Spitfire that I think should be added is the Seafire Mk III, of which more than 1200 were built being the main Seafire version.
The new options for the Bf109F-4 and Bf109G-6 as well as a Bf109G-6/AS being added would be great. Particularly the latter would be a big help for scenarios as there is currently no high altitude Bf109 until the very late war Bf109K-4, which makes American Bomber offensive settings very lopsided.
-
I have seen some requests for the Spit Vc to be returned, but not real hysterics and blame games.
I don't think the Spit Vc needs to be returned to the game. The Spit IX fills the 1942 hole for the Spits just fine. The only new Spitfire that I think should be added is the Seafire Mk III, of which more than 1200 were built being the main Seafire version.
The new options for the Bf109F-4 and Bf109G-6 as well as a Bf109G-6/AS being added would be great. Particularly the latter would be a big help for scenarios as there is currently no high altitude Bf109 until the very late war Bf109K-4, which makes American Bomber offensive settings very lopsided.
I'm glad that You don't think the Spit Vc should be returned ... I bet if you took a vote amongst your pals you would be in the minority.... Now!... a vote for the SpitVc <how many were made?> versus the P-51 <150> who do you think would win? Not a vote on the forum either, an in game vote with description.
As far as the ME-109F4 ....You would see the F-4 use skyrocket back up and they would not be new options on the F-4 as we had them allready....
Gondies and an Egg,
-
Gondolas on a bf109F4... *vomit*
-
Well, you may have your opinion, but just before the Spits were redone I made my post and Guppy, Kev and other Spitfire fans (not fair weather fans that just use it because it is good/easy, but historical Spit fans) all concurred about that change for representative purposes and when HTC redid the Spit's Pyro made the change, so he must have agreed as well. Having a Spit Vc as our Spit V left us with no 1941 Spitfire. The lineup jumped from the 1940 Mk Ia to the mid-1942 Mk IX with the Mk Vc coming even later in 1942.
You seem to like to portray me as whacked and way out there on my own, but such is just not the case. I don't have the influence with HTC you have ascribed to me, but it seems I see things mostly eye to eye with them.
-
Gondolas on a bf109F4... *vomit*
Don't use them :aok
-
Well, you may have your opinion, but just before the Spits were redone I made my post and Guppy, Kev and other Spitfire fans (not fair weather fans that just use it because it is good/easy, but historical Spit fans) all concurred about that change for representative purposes and when HTC redid the Spit's Pyro made the change, so he must have agreed as well. Having a Spit Vc as our Spit V left us with no 1941 Spitfire. The lineup jumped from the 1940 Mk Ia to the mid-1942 Mk IX with the Mk Vc coming even later in 1942.
You seem to like to portray me as whacked and way out there on my own, but such is just not the case. I don't have the influence with HTC you have ascribed to me, but it seems I see things mostly eye to eye with them.
Okay the 3 of you :aok
Missed the Post,
-
Okay the 3 of you :aok
Missed the Post,
You weren't hear at the time, assuming your 2006 registration date is accurate.
It was more then three of us, but I named the other two that stand out/stood out (Kev isn't around anymore) as guys who know what they're talking about when it comes to Spitfires.
And as noted, none of us have any particular pull with HTC. We can't make them do something they don't think is a good idea. It is entirely possible that Pyro would have done it without us discussing it.
-
There were several large threads which discussed what models would best represent the spitfire as it was modified through the war. From memory i would have to say it was pretty unanimous amongst the spit fans to have the current crop of spits we have now; even the spit XVI to differentiate between F IX from a spit LF IX.
-
You weren't here at the time...
-
There were several large threads which discussed what models would best represent the spitfire as it was modified through the war. From memory i would have to say it was pretty unanimous amongst the spit fans to have the current crop of spits we have now; even the spit XVI to differentiate between F IX from a spit LF IX.
Well, I suggested the Seafire Mk III either in place of or in addition to the Seafire Mk II given that 1220 Seafire MK IIIs were built compared to 372 Seafire Mk IIs and that the Mk XVI be modeled on 150 octane. Neither of those were done. I still think the Seafire Mk III should be added, but the 150 octane Spitfire Mk XVI would clearly be a perk plane and I don't mourn its absence at all.
-
You weren't hear at the time, assuming your 2006 registration date is accurate.
It was more then three of us, but I named the other two that stand out/stood out (Kev isn't around anymore) as guys who know what they're talking about when it comes to Spitfires.
And as noted, none of us have any particular pull with HTC. We can't make them do something they don't think is a good idea. It is entirely possible that Pyro would have done it without us discussing it.
Actually... I was here at the time.. I registered on the boards August 2004. I started in tour 53 .... May, 2004. .
Well I'm glad Kev got his way and split. Tiff is still around <an old spit guy> but mostly flys the 38, glad he got his way. You are still here but mostly fly the mossie, glad you got your way.
None of you fly the 109F-4, plain sucks that a few spit dweebs got there way concerning the 109F-4!
Pyro? Possible but not likely.
So you did mention it? Thought you said you were only advocating the spit be changed and didn't say anything about the 109F-4?
Which is it?,
-
:lol
-
None of us "Spit dweebs" made requests about the Bf109F-4 as I recall. I certainly would not have made any such request as I was not aware that gondolas were rare on Bf109F-4s until discussions about it were started by others. I don't even recall who, if anybody, brought it up before they vanished from the Bf109F-4. I'll grant you that I would have supported such a suggestion once it was laid out with evidence as to why it should be so, just as I would have with the Bf109G-6 being a representation of an early G-6. With the change to the ability for CMs to limit loadout availability my prior positions on both of those are null and void, as stated in my first post in this thread.
You are very far from the mark when you accuse us of having nerfed the Bf109s. You also seem to be focused only on the MA and not considering the need to fill gaps in scenarios. A Spitfire Mk Vc, as I said earlier, leaves a two year gap in the Spitfire line.
FWIW, I also said the .50 cals, bombs and rockets should be removed from the Spitfire Mk IX, so you can get upset with me for that too if you like. I stand by that position as no Merlin 61 Spitfire Mk IX carried that stuff.
-
None of us "Spit dweebs" made requests about the Bf109F-4 as I recall. I certainly would not have made any such request as I was not aware that gondolas were rare on Bf109F-4s until discussions about it were started by others. I don't even recall who, if anybody, brought it up before they vanished from the Bf109F-4. I'll grant you that I would have supported such a suggestion once it was laid out with evidence as to why it should be so, just as I would have with the Bf109G-6 being a representation of an early G-6. With the change to the ability for CMs to limit loadout availability my prior positions on both of those are null and void, as stated in my first post in this thread.
You are very far from the mark when you accuse us of having nerfed the Bf109s. You also seem to be focused only on the MA and not considering the need to fill gaps in scenarios. A Spitfire Mk Vc, as I said earlier, leaves a two year gap in the Spitfire line.
FWIW, I also said the .50 cals, bombs and rockets should be removed from the Spitfire Mk IX, so you can get upset with me for that too if you like. I stand by that position as no Merlin 61 Spitfire Mk IX carried that stuff.
Rare?
240 109F-4/R1 made at the factory..... not field mods, prototypes or test planes.
Rare is 16 TA-152 that were in combat.
Rare is the 163
Rare is the P-47M <200>
Rare is the Arado 234 <200> certainly not all in use
Rare is the B-239 with <44>
Rare is the F4U-C <200>
Rare is the P-51 <150> not in game we need the allison mustang.... couple of em...
All complete planes that were more rare than a simple ordinance package :rolleyes:
I am focused on the MA... thats where 98% of the folks fly.....DAILY!. The scenario managers are able to set the planes the way they want. The more options for the planes the more they are flown.
I really don't care about your spitfires, don't fly them, no desire to, but I certainly wouldn't be trying to take thing's from them or out of the game.... especially if they were used historically in the war!
If the MKIX did not have whatever... then I would be with you for whatever it was, but I don't know and don't care and am not going to look it up, even though I have plenty of resources to do so.
:aok
-
You're focused on the MA, but would rather have a planeset that is/had been filled by historical production volumes?
-
Rare?
240 109F-4/R1 made at the factory..... not field mods, prototypes or test planes.
A heavy minority of Bf109F-4s and when CMs lacked the option to limit it when appropriate would result in inappropriate aircraft matchups.
Rare is 16 TA-152 that were in combat.
I would not have added the Ta152 if it were up to me. In addition I wouldn't count that as rare so much as almost nonexistent. Suspect it was added because it reused some Fw190D-9 art work.
Rare is the 163
See: Ta152. Suspect it was added for Wow! factor.
Rare is the P-47M <200>
Yes, but it was only added because it uses the exact same 3D model as the P-47D-40 making it resource cheap for HTC to add.
Rare is the Arado 234 <200> certainly not all in use
Yes, it was added because a perk bomber was needed and I suspect that of the two obvious ones the Ar234 was much less work compared to the B-29.
Rare is the B-239 with <44>
Kinda. It saw heavy use and had outsized impact for its low airframe count. It was also added, as I am sure you're aware, as a bone to the Finns that have long supported this game.
Rare is the F4U-1C <200>
This was probably the most problematic of all aircraft added given there were no controls on its use before being perked. It is another cheap addition though. At least it isn't an F4U-4C like was added to WarBirds based on a mislabeled photo. :uhoh
Rare is the P-51 <150> not in game we need the allison mustang.... couple of em...
I have advocated to Allison Mustangs to be added.
All complete planes that were more rare than a simple ordinance package :rolleyes:
This completely misses the point of removing the gondolas or 30mm at the time. Don't want a P-47M in your scenario? Don't enable it. Don't want Ta152s in your event? Don't add them. Don't want gondolas for the Bf109F-4 in your setting? Tough, it has them.
I am focused on the MA... thats where 98% of the folks fly.....DAILY!. The scenario managers are able to set the planes the way they want. The more options for the planes the more they are flown.
Got those numbers from HTC did you?
I really don't care about your spitfires, don't fly them, no desire to, but I certainly wouldn't be trying to take thing's from them or out of the game.... especially if they were used historically in the war!
If the MKIX did not have whatever... then I would be with you for whatever it was, but I don't know and don't care and am not going to look it up, even though I have plenty of resources to do so.
:aok
And this sort of thing is why your opinions don't really matter in the end.
-
Rare?
240 109F-4/R1 made at the factory..... not field mods, prototypes or test planes.
Rare is 16 TA-152 that were in combat.
Rare is the 163
Rare is the P-47M <200>
Rare is the Arado 234 <200> certainly not all in use
Rare is the B-239 with <44>
Rare is the F4U-C <200>
Rare is the P-51 <150> not in game we need the allison mustang.... couple of em...
All complete planes that were more rare than a simple ordinance package :rolleyes:
I am focused on the MA... thats where 98% of the folks fly.....DAILY!. The scenario managers are able to set the planes the way they want. The more options for the planes the more they are flown.
I really don't care about your spitfires, don't fly them, no desire to, but I certainly wouldn't be trying to take thing's from them or out of the game.... especially if they were used historically in the war!
If the MKIX did not have whatever... then I would be with you for whatever it was, but I don't know and don't care and am not going to look it up, even though I have plenty of resources to do so.
:aok
Rare is finding a thread without you arguing in it
-
Rare is finding a thread without you arguing in it
Rarer is a single thread without you commenting in it or making just a smiley :aok
-
A heavy minority of Bf109F-4s and when CMs lacked the option to limit it when appropriate would result in inappropriate aircraft matchups.
It's not that way now
"Stuff"
This completely misses the point of removing the gondolas or 30mm at the time. Don't want a P-47M in your scenario? Don't enable it. Don't want Ta152s in your event? Don't add them. Don't want gondolas for the Bf109F-4 in your setting? Tough, it has them.
The topic of the thread is 109F-4 ordinance
Got those numbers from HTC did you?
No there mine, you tell me where the majority of players spend most of their time.
And this sort of thing is why your opinions don't really matter in the end.
What? Agreeing with you?.... :lol
-
It's not that way now
Hence my support of adding the option for the gondolas, bomb and 30mm cannon back in. Or did you miss my repeated statements to that effect?
-
Hence my support of adding the option for the gondolas, bomb and 30mm cannon back in.
Okay, ....I will look forward to more of your support in the future..and likewise.
Thanks,
-
The topic of the thread is 109F-4 ordinance
Says the guy who argued for 2 pages in THIS topic about how many TA-152's saw combat. :rofl
-
Says the guy who argued for 2 pages in THIS topic about how many TA-152's saw combat. :rofl
yes 2 full pages :rofl
Ta 152 shouldnt be in the game wanna talk about it?
I have time,
-
The 109F's gondies shouldn't have been taken away, but the 152 should be?
-
The 109F's gondies shouldn't have been taken away, but the 152 should be?
Complete Plane VS. Ordinance Package?
I am not advocating for it but it is here before many many more well deserving planes.
Can you show me more than 16 TA-152's used in combat? That includes test planes and prototypes>.....16! ...I mean were talk-in vg33, c714, B-135 and Ik-3 type stuff here. The under 20 crowd :lol
Do you think 16 qualifies for inclusion with a total of what 13kills?... 13 kills before say something that had hundreds of kills? How many planes not yet in the game is that? A lot!
Homage to the Tank?,
-
Well, you need to consider the amount of work needed to do an addition as well. All things being equal the Beaufighter ought to be added well before the Ta152 is even thought about, but all things aren't equal. The Ta152 reuses at least some of the artwork from the Fw190D-9.
-
Well, you need to consider the amount of work needed to do an addition as well. All things being equal the Beaufighter ought to be added well before the Ta152 is even thought about, but all things aren't equal. The Ta152 reuses at least some of the artwork from the Fw190D-9.
If we stick to the thread <G> 240 109F-4/R1 + 600 <or so> 109F-4/B all factory built production planes..840... of what?.. 1600 of the F variant? so ...840 <half of the 109F4's made> vs. 59 Ta-152<karnaks number, which is all 152's made> U tell me.
How long has it been since the change in the scenario management? ......I mean it can't be that hard to switch the options for the 109F4 back on right? How come its not done yet? :O :confused:
Wanna start again,
-
Well that source material omits planes/Wnr. that my source has.
Source is Hitchcock's "Focke-Wulf Ta-152"
Since:... Kurt Tank: Focke-Wulf's designer and test pilot... Wolfgang Wagner
This book list less in the inventory 40 of the H series....also ..your WnR. # stand for werknummer ..look at the chart I posted of prototypes Wnr.
and ..Monogram #24 Ta-152 ... Jeffrey L. Ethell
The book you have listed is just based on the book by Harmann in an updated style... no new info.
:cheers:
-
Since:... Kurt Tank: Focke-Wulf's designer and test pilot... Wolfgang Wagner
This book list less in the inventory 40 of the H series....also ..your WnR. # stand for werknummer ..look at the chart I posted of prototypes Wnr.
and ..Monogram #24 Ta-152 ... Jeffrey L. Ethell
The book you have listed is just based on the book by Harmann in an updated style... no new info.
:cheers:
Okay. He does mention Ethell in the preface to the book. Some of the information from that book does appear in this book. I don't want to get embroiled in a source war.
I can assume the book by Harmann is the book you own.
Of course it is. But there is new information, a list of aircraft that includes many more aircraft than the one you posted.
-
Okay. He does mention Ethell in the preface to the book. Some of the information from that book does appear in this book. I don't want to get embroiled in a source war.
I can assume the book by Harmann is the book you own.
Of course it is. But there is new information, a list of aircraft that includes many more aircraft than the one you posted.
For educational purposes you can post them ... waits
Actually ...I own all the books I've posted...the 2 new 1's I just recieved... and few more... 4 are...
Bonha B Bo3Ayxe No.82 Focke-Wulf 190D TA-152
Monografie #21 Fw190D and Ta152 ...Marian Krzyzan
Focke-Wulf 190D & Ta-152 ...Tomas Poruba and Alez Janda
and of course the Profile #94 190Dora-Ta152 Series
:cheers:
-
For educational purposes you can post them ... waits
Actually ...I own all the books I've posted...the 2 new 1's I just recieved... and few more... 4 are...
Bonha B Bo3Ayxe No.82 Focke-Wulf 190D TA-152
Monografie #21 Fw190D and Ta152 ...Marian Krzyzan
Focke-Wulf 190D & Ta-152 ...Tomas Poruba and Alez Janda
and of course the Profile #94 190Dora-Ta152 Series
:cheers:
I could if I had a scanner or you could go get the book. Or someone with a scanner could post it.
-
Another MegaPuke MegaCocky MegaArgueing MegaShizz.
You still think that youre taken seriously?
-
If we stick to the thread <G> 240 109F-4/R1 + 600 <or so> 109F-4/B all factory built production planes..840... of what?.. 1600 of the F variant? so ...840 <half of the 109F4's made> vs. 59 Ta-152<karnaks number, which is all 152's made> U tell me.
The number Bf109F-4 using gondolas vs Ta152 production numbers have, I cannot emphasize this enough, literally nothing to do with each other in terms of AH. It is a completely inane line of thought that completely ignores reality.
Also, where did I say 59 Ta152s were built/used/whatever? You keep accusing me of stuff I didn't say or do.
How long has it been since the change in the scenario management? ......I mean it can't be that hard to switch the options for the 109F4 back on right? How come its not done yet? :O :confused:
Wanna start again,
I already explained it to you.
You seem to have really weird ideas about who is responsible for what.
-
The 152's not a prototype, it was the 190 that should've been made earlier. On top of that add German late war circumstances - of course late war models are low volume. Its production numbers are circumstantially, not purposely, comparable to the P-61's. The 152 is not... the XF5U or any Luft 46 concept. It's not even an arguably borderline model like, say, the He 219.
-
Erm, how is the He219 less appropriate than the Ta152?
-
i bet there wouldn't be any issue with dumping the 152 if the high alt performance for the other 190s as well as the 109s was improved...no reason for them to struggle at 30,000ft.
-
How's this for a deal?
Create a sub variant called Bf-109F-2 with 1200ps as a real contemporary to early birds like the in-game Spitfire V, and then add back bombs and extra guns back to Bf-109F-4 and reclassify that as mid war plane. Our in-game 109F-4 is basically a mid war plane in respect to power ratings and should be reclassified accordingly. It only got clearance to use its full pwoer of 1350ps as late as 1942.
-
i bet there wouldn't be any issue with dumping the 152 if the high alt performance for the other 190s as well as the 109s was improved...no reason for them to struggle at 30,000ft.
You take that back. You take that back right NOW !
Dont even think about touching my TA152. :airplane: :mad:
-
You take that back. You take that back right NOW !
Dont even think about touching my TA152. :airplane: :mad:
:rofl :devil
if i could get an a8 to do something but flop around at 30,000...i'd use it more than a 152.
-
There is no reason to remove something that has already been added. It nets us nothing.
-
There is no reason to remove something that has already been added. It nets us nothing.
been done before, what's the difference now?
-
been done before, what's the difference now?
When was an airplane removed?
No, the Bf109G-10 and P-47D-30 were not removed. We never had them. We had a Bf109K-4 that was labeled as a Bf109G-10 to justify giving it 20mm options and a P-47D-40 that was mislabeled as a P-47D-30.
-
When was an airplane removed?
No, the Bf109G-10 and P-47D-30 were not removed. We never had them. We had a Bf109K-4 that was labeled as a Bf109G-10 to justify giving it 20mm options and a P-47D-40 that was mislabeled as a P-47D-30.
so we had a bf109-g10 at one time...and now we don't. seems like it no longer exists...
-
so we had a bf109-g10 at one time...and now we don't. seems like it no longer exists...
No, we never had a Bf109G-10, as I said.
We had a Bf109K-4 that was labeled as a Bf109G-10 to give 20mm options it ought not have had, but it did 452mph like a Bf109K-4, not 426mph like a Bf109G-10.
When the Bf109s were updated the inappropriate and inaccurate hybrid was redone as the Bf109K-4 it had always been.
-
:rofl :devil
if i could get an a8 to do something but flop around at 30,000...i'd use it more than a 152.
But isn't that the whole reason for the 152?
-
But isn't that the whole reason for the 152?
that plus HO the pesky spit 16 and p51's :old:
:bolt:
-
Erm, how is the He219 less appropriate than the Ta152?
Not such a great example. I mean something that didn't make it out of prototype-ish stage (arguably the 152's proto stage is previous 190 models - something like 219 doesnt have such long direct precursor history) and/or saw negligible/no combat and/or was historically insignificant and/or adds nothing useful or novel to MA/historical arenas..
IMO Probably the main "pro" for adding the 152, before being a cheap dev addition, is that it's "the" 190. You come to this game to fly and fight these machines, and down the strand of permutation of design elements that is the Fw190 family, the 152 is IMO the optimal iteration (something between D-9 and H-1 like a 152B with short wings, low alt engine, 3x MK103 would be perfect).. The optimal iteration of one of the main "schools" - "BnZ". The He 219 just doesn't strike as many of the right cues for inclusion, even though it's not a good example.
I'm hosed from 12h workday. Can't articulate what I mean well enough, sorry.
In any case like you said, removing anything already in game is non sense. The 152's merit oughta be argued in a separate thread.
-
But isn't that the whole reason for the 152?
in the ah world i suppose so but, it would be nice if the 190s and 109s could operate where they are supposed to instead of having to take a perk plane up...
-
in the ah world i suppose so but, it would be nice if the 190s and 109s could operate where they are supposed to instead of having to take a perk plane up...
Perk plane?
-
There is no reason to remove something that has already been added. It nets us nothing.
Like gondolas and a bomb?
-
Not such a great example. I mean something that didn't make it out of prototype-ish stage (arguably the 152's proto stage is previous 190 models - something like 219 doesnt have such long direct precursor history) and/or saw negligible/no combat and/or was historically insignificant and/or adds nothing useful or novel to MA/historical arenas..
IMO Probably the main "pro" for adding the 152, before being a cheap dev addition, is that it's "the" 190. You come to this game to fly and fight these machines, and down the strand of permutation of design elements that is the Fw190 family, the 152 is IMO the optimal iteration (something between D-9 and H-1 like a 152B with short wings, low alt engine, 3x MK103 would be perfect).. The optimal iteration of one of the main "schools" - "BnZ". The He 219 just doesn't strike as many of the right cues for inclusion, even though it's not a good example.
I'm hosed from 12h workday. Can't articulate what I mean well enough, sorry.
In any case like you said, removing anything already in game is non sense. The 152's merit oughta be argued in a separate thread.
I will make a new post on the ^Ta152 when I get home tonight..... for now:
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/ta-152Text_zps29647d26.jpg)
:cheers:
-
Like gondolas and a bomb?
I have twice explained the difference to you. The fact that you insist on pretending not to understand simple concepts written in simple English is not cute so stop it.
-
I have twice explained the difference to you. The fact that you insist on pretending not to understand simple concepts written in simple English is not cute so stop it.
You can explain all you want .........Its something we had in the game and.... It was takin away.
Any Way U Slice It,
-
You can explain all you want .........Its something we had in the game and.... It was takin away.
Any Way U Slice It,
Ok, try this. You can disagree with something being done while still understanding the reason(s) it was done and recognizing that it is not exactly like the other thing.
You act like you think that if you admit you understand why it was done, even though you disagree with it, you'll be giving it your support. That is a really juvenile, black and white view of things and reality simply doesn't work that way.
-
Ok, try this. You can disagree with something being done while still understanding the reason(s) it was done and recognizing that it is not exactly like the other thing.
You act like you think that if you admit you understand why it was done, even though you disagree with it, you'll be giving it your support. That is a really juvenile, black and white view of things and reality simply doesn't work that way.
Try This
You are so full of yourself.... I dosn't matter to me why it was done, and I do understand what you were thinking when it was done and I think it was wrong... and the fact that it was done for some spit dweebs really irks me. It was my favorite plane at the time.
If you don't like my postion to bad... and once again you don't sit in judgement of me... all seeing great 1..
and I still say that half <840> of the production of the varient warrent's them being in the game ....more than a plane that had a total 59? copies made... maybe 16 in combat ....
If you cant understand that comparison its your comprehension that has failed.
:aok
Oh and Btw I meant Kilo above not you.... sorry
-
I'm full of myself? :rofl
I understand that you don't agree with that decision. I understand why you don't agree with that decision. I agree that your position is a valid and reasonable position.
I don't understand why those to things render it impossible for you to understand why taking the options for the gondolas and the bomb from the Bf109F-4 is different that removing the Ta152H-1 entirely. It is like you are so stubbornly insistent that only your viewpoint is valid to the point that even rationally discussing the pros and cons of something is an anathema that you cannot bear.
Try stepping outside of yourself for a change.
-
I'm full of myself? :rofl
I understand that you don't agree with that decision. I understand why you don't agree with that decision. I agree that your position is a valid and reasonable position.
I don't understand why those to things render it impossible for you to understand why taking the options for the gondolas and the bomb from the Bf109F-4 is different that removing the Ta152H-1 entirely. It is like you are so stubbornly insistent that only your viewpoint is valid to the point that even rationally discussing the pros and cons of something is an anathema that you cannot bear.
Try stepping outside of yourself for a change.
Obviously your mixed up where did I say remove the ta 152?
-
yes 2 full pages :rofl
Ta 152 shouldnt be in the game wanna talk about it?
I have time,
It can be read two different ways.
-
It can be read two different ways.
You must have special reading skills then
The 109F's gondies shouldn't have been taken away, but the 152 should be?
I am not advocating for it but it is here before many many more well deserving planes.
Can you show me more than 16 TA-152's used in combat? That includes test planes and prototypes>.....16! ...I mean were talk-in vg33, c714, B-135 and Ik-3 type stuff here. The under 20 crowd :lol
:cheers:
-
It can be read two different ways.
Whoo hoo! Karnaks radioactive! :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:
:aok
I wouldn't mind having gondies on the F4. Did K4 have them as well?
-
Like I said...
How's this for a deal?
Create a sub variant called Bf-109F-2 with 1200ps as a real contemporary to early birds like the in-game Spitfire V, and then add back bombs and extra guns back to Bf-109F-4 and reclassify that as mid war plane. Our in-game 109F-4 is basically a mid war plane in respect to power ratings and should be reclassified accordingly. It only got clearance to use its full pwoer of 1350ps as late as 1942.
-
Bring back the g10 :rock
-
Bring back the g10 :rock
Can't bring back something we never had.
-
How's this for a deal?
Create a sub variant called Bf-109F-2 with 1200ps as a real contemporary to early birds like the in-game Spitfire V, and then add back bombs and extra guns back to Bf-109F-4 and reclassify that as mid war plane. Our in-game 109F-4 is basically a mid war plane in respect to power ratings and should be reclassified accordingly. It only got clearance to use its full power of 1350ps as late as 1942.
I think this is a good idea.... we have 2 G models!
I think more will clamore for the E-7 tho. Hey!!.. 2 E models....... and away the go the 109 dweebs are getting ahead of the Spit dweebs at the 1/4 pole, ...the Spit dweebs rally back at the 1/2 mile pole with a SpitVc and a Spit 7,... at the 3/4 pole 109's add the G10 and at the finish line, here comes Arlo in a 109b.... it's Spit's 7 and 109's 9
:rofl :rofl :rofl
:cheers:
Sorry :rofl Opening day <Hat Day WOOWOO> tommorrow... where the turf meets the surf At Ol DelMar... take a plane, take a train, take a car.
Takin the sled,
-
Bring back the g10 :rock
Can't bring back something we never had.
I've seen charts and tables for G-10... it's basically like a 109G-14 but with clean K-style nose and with power unit tuned for medium-high altitude duty as opposed to low-medium exhibited by G-14.
-
I think this is a good idea.... we have 2 G models!
I think more will clamore for the E-7 tho. Hey!!.. 2 E models....... and away the go the 109 dweebs are getting ahead of the Spit dweebs at the 1/4 pole, ...the Spit dweebs rally back at the 1/2 mile pole with a SpitVc and a Spit 7,... at the 3/4 pole 109's add the G10 and at the finish line, here comes Arlo in a 109b.... it's Spit's 7 and 109's 9
:rofl :rofl :rofl
:cheers:
Sorry :rofl Opening day <Hat Day WOOWOO> tommorrow... where the turf meets the surf At Ol DelMar... take a plane, take a train, take a car.
Takin the sled,
It's actually a tie if we bring in 2 significant Spitfire subvariants:
Spitfire XII
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Supermarine_Spitfire_F_Mk_XIIs_of_41_Sqn.jpg)
Spitfire LF V (clipped wing with +16 boost)
(http://fighter-collection.com/cft/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/SP%20V-1024x740.jpg)
-
The G-10 is basically a G-14/AS with a 605DB engine and probably some other small improvements/adaptions from the 109K development.
The G-14/AS already had the streamlined nose (just like former /AS variants).
-
Not sure how you can pretend to claim the 109F-4 we have is a "mid war" variant... What bollocks.
The F-2 had a little less horsepower, yes, but you can't only add the bomb rack to the F-4 because the bomb rack was introduced on the F-2! F-2s were running bomb raids over the channel then sticking around to dogfight after ords were dropped.
I'd be happy to have an F-2, as a step between E-4 and F-4, but it would have to have the same bombrack opion as the F-4. Neither should have gondolas, though.
-
Not sure how you can pretend to claim the 109F-4 we have is a "mid war" variant... What bollocks.
F-4 in-game's got power levels not used for its intended time frame (early war, '41). It's is like giving the in-game Spitfire V a +16 boost and use and classify it as early war plane.
Here's the rule of thumb
40-41 = early
42-43 = mid
44-45 = late war
and my solution :aok
How's this for a deal?
Create a sub variant called Bf-109F-2 with 1200ps as a real contemporary to early birds like the in-game Spitfire V, and then add back bombs and extra guns back to Bf-109F-4 and reclassify that as mid war plane. Our in-game 109F-4 is basically a mid war plane in respect to power ratings and should be reclassified accordingly. It only got clearance to use its full pwoer of 1350ps as late as 1942.
-
Source?
-
Indeed.. what source?
I've seen documents listing 1.42 ata which are dated 1941. I've also seen 1941 charts showing that 1.3 is the 30-minute power setting (NOT the max power setting).
-
Edit: Going back to this supposed Bf109F power conspiracy.....
F-1s were only being delivered to JG2 in April of 1941.
In September of 1941 JG27 in Africa was being re-equipped with F-1s and F-2s.
In the fall of 1941 on the Russian front, noted ace Werner Molders was flying a F-2.
In December 1941, Reich Marshall Goring himself was flying F-2s. Notably modified with more guns, but F-2s (NOT F-4s).
A small number of F-3s were in use early in 1942 scattered amongst units.
F-4s were introduced early in 1942. F-4s were as early as February 1942 cleared for 1.42 per the flight book. That's pretty damn near since the start of their service. By May 1942 they were already working on the Bf109G-1 model, so throughout its 6 months of intense action it was always using that power setting. Some hand-me-down units on the Russian Front were given war-weary models for jabo use and ran them at reduced power, but this is also true of their jabo 109Es. They were not used as front-line fighters.
The SpitV we have is a second-half-of-1941 spit. The one with +16 was a late 1943 model and totally inappropriate. The fact of the matter is that the same spit was in use when the Bf109F-4 arrived to engage it. The F-2 was there for some months before the F-4, but let there be no doubt this constant conspiracy theory has been put to rest. We have the best appropriately matched 109F-4 and SpitVb we can have.
The F-2 would round it out better, as would the E-7 (which was struggling against SpitVs for a short while until the F-1s/F-2s could help ease the pain). By no means do we have a complete planeset, but we do have a damn good matchup with our F-4 and Vb pairing. Those that disagree haven't flown both sides of it against their historical rivals. It's quite a balanced fight.
EDIT2: Footnote on the power setting... comment from kurfurst.org:
"This clearance is in fact also supported by the February 1942 release of the Bf 109F Flugzeughandbuch, which no longer notes any limitation in regards to the DB 601 E. The new Hanbuch part 7 (Powerplant) was likely to have been re-issued because of this clearance.
See D.(Luft) T. 2109F-1 bis F-4, 'Bf 109F-1 bis F-4 Flugzeug-Handbuch', Teil 6 'Triebwerksanlage', page 7., authorized in Berlin, 24 February 1942."
-
F-4 in-game's got power levels not used for its intended time frame (early war, '41). It's is like giving the in-game Spitfire V a +16 boost and use and classify it as early war plane.
Here's the rule of thumb
40-41 = early
42-43 = mid
44-45 = late war
and my solution :aok
Last i checked, the Spitfire Mk IX was available in the early war arena. True, it was almost a year ago.
Even though your point is valid, consider this please.
-
40-41 = early
42-43 = mid
44-45 = late war
Your early war is wrong from the perspective of France, Poland Germany, China, Japan, and Britain.
1936 Japan were at war with china
1939 Poland invaded
-
In December 1941, Reich Marshall Goring himself was flying F-2s. Notably modified with more guns, but F-2s (NOT F-4s).
How did they shoehorn that fat bigtoe into a 109?!? Are you sure you don't mean Adolf Galland...
-
How did they shoehorn that fat bigtoe into a 109?!? Are you sure you don't mean Adolf Galland...
good question...i know he had his own train but, a 109? :headscratch:
-
In December 1941, Reich Marshall Goring himself was flying F-2s. Notably modified with more guns, but F-2s (NOT F-4s).
You should watch less Anime ;)
-
I was doing some reading on the F4,it appears that I./JG52,1./JG3 and III./JG3 all were given F4's with gondies F4/R1 was the designation. In the early summer of 42 JG77 received a batch of F4/R1's but the gondies were removed.
Both the F4/b and F4/R1's saw service and were built in numbers,I see no reason to not have them implemented ingame,especially now that CM's can limit to loadouts.
:salute
-
There's no F-4/B or F-4/b designation as all Fs were able to carry bombs. This designation was dropped from the E-7 on.
-
There's no F-4/B or F-4/b designation as all Fs were able to carry bombs. This designation was dropped from the E-7 on.
you might want to pass that information on to oberleutnant frank liesendahl staffelkapitan 10./jg2 richtofen...it was the jabo designation for the -f4s equipped with a centerline bomb rack for a 250kg bomb.
-
Yes, you're right. Galland, not Goring. Brain fart on that one, my bad!
Technically there may have been a /b designation but it wasn't important. The only thing needed was the bomb rack, which was widely available.
As for the R1 gondolas, the planes capable of even MOUNTING gondolas had to have the R1 factory modification installed. Very few of them had it. Further, those that DID mostly went through their service lives without ever mounting them. Those actual F-4 models that carried gondolas were as rare as golden geese.
P.S. Lusche, I don't understand the anime reference... :headscratch:
-
P.S. Lusche, I don't understand the anime reference... :headscratch:
i could be wrong but i think he's referring to - "all your base are belong to us!!!"
-
Yes, you're right. Galland, not Goring. Brain fart on that one, my bad!
Technically there may have been a /b designation but it wasn't important. The only thing needed was the bomb rack, which was widely available.
As for the R1 gondolas, the planes capable of even MOUNTING gondolas had to have the R1 factory modification installed. Very few of them had it. Further, those that DID mostly went through their service lives without ever mounting them. Those actual F-4 models that carried gondolas were as rare as golden geese.
P.S. Lusche, I don't understand the anime reference... :headscratch:
Krusty,
240 work numbers are attributed to the R1 "kit" out of 1841 total builds is not what I'd consider rare as a golden egg! that 15% of production that was tested on a previous mark the F2.
In the Prien book there at plenty of photos,and if 3 stab. and 1 gruppen don't count as being fielded then I don't know what does.
I can understand the removal before the CM's had the ability to limit loadouts but I see no reason not to have them now that the CM's can limit them. In the mains it would maybe make the 109F used more often.
On a side note I could be requesting the GM1 kit for the F4,but that I do know was quite rare!
:salute
-
morfiend,
You misread him a bit. He wasn't saying the Bf109F-4/R1s were that rare, he was saying that Bf109F-4/R1s almost never used the gondolas and hence, R1s already being a heavy minority, Bf109F-4s actually using gondolas were extremely rare.
I cannot speak to the accuracy of his claim though.
-
morfiend,
You misread him a bit. He wasn't saying the Bf109F-4/R1s were that rare, he was saying that Bf109F-4/R1s almost never used the gondolas and hence, R1s already being a heavy minority, Bf109F-4s actually using gondolas were extremely rare.
I cannot speak to the accuracy of his claim though.
I guess you could be correct,I don't have the imformation on the sories flown with or without them. I can only rely on Prien"s numbers of those built and who got them.
I also understand they weren't liked much by the pilots and I suspect many had them removed if they had a say. However this is neither here nor there,we do many things in Aces High that weren't done in RL,HTC just offers the tools that were available and I think since the gondies were "available" lets leave it to the pilots to decide whether to take them or not.
:salute
-
Source?
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.beim-zeugmeister.de%2Fzeugmeister%2Findex.php%3Fid%3D38
F-4s were introduced early in 1942. F-4s were as early as February 1942 cleared for 1.42 per the flight book.
Prien and Rodeike (1995, pp. 23–24) says first F-4s r4eached frontline service in June '41 :headscratch:
-
Morfiend, Karnak was correct in reading what I said.
Perrine, I think that's completely wrong compared to everything else I've read. In June 1941, they were only just barely getting E-7s to North Africa. E-4s were the frontline fighter of the time. It wasn't until September 1941 that early model 109Fs started reaching North Africa. F-1s and F-2s.
At near enough the same time, they were stockpiling Bf109Fs (F does not mean F-4, it means F-1 and F-2s) for Barbarossa, even though they didn't have enough and over 1/3 of the frontline fighters at the time were Emils still.
JG2, the very FIRST recipients of the Bf109F-1 only received theirs in March and April 1941.
Just because it says "109F" doesn't mean it's an F-4. F-4s started appearing in service at the beginning of 1942.
-
So Krusty from the same page it states the first F-4, WNr 7020, lost was on July 1 1941 from 8./JG52 (Oblt Lossnitz)
How can a F-4 be lost in 1941 if as you say they weren't introduced til 1942?
-
From the same page? The same page that says they were around in June 1941? Yeah... same error. Same authors making the same mistake.
The F-1 was still being rushed out in June 1941. They were still discovering the teething problems with the plane at the time. No way was the F-4 seeing combat at the time. Look at the introduction dates for the F-1, F-2, and the F-3. Ask yourself why Galland was flying F-2s in December 1941 if F-4s were available for 6 months (according to your book). Ask yourself why the F-3, which had a short run BEFORE the F-4, was only introduced to combat units around January 1942.
I've quoted books with mistakes in dates before. I've been corrected before. It happens. Mistakes in books happen quite a lot. This is one of those mistakes.
-
F-4
WNF: 1046 built between 5.41 and 12.41
Erla: 795 built between 6.41 and 8.41
Erla: 219 built between 8.41 and 12.41
Total: 2060
F-1 production from 8.40 to 2.41
F-2 production from 2.41 to 8-41 > 1334 a/c
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/statistics/se28641.htm
28.5.41
E - 439
F-1/2 - 669
F-4 - 74
F - 23
So Krusty, why is there 74 F-4s, with the units they were assigned to?
Do I smell a pwn?
-
Edit: Going back to this supposed Bf109F power conspiracy.....
F-1s were only being delivered to JG2 in April of 1941.
In September of 1941 JG27 in Africa was being re-equipped with F-1s and F-2s.
In the fall of 1941 on the Russian front, noted ace Werner Molders was flying a F-2.
In December 1941, Reich Marshall Goring himself was flying F-2s. Notably modified with more guns, but F-2s (NOT F-4s).
A small number of F-3s were in use early in 1942 scattered amongst units.
F-4s were introduced early in 1942. F-4s were as early as February 1942 cleared for 1.42 per the flight book. That's pretty damn near since the start of their service. By May 1942 they were already working on the Bf109G-1 model, so throughout its 6 months of intense action it was always using that power setting. Some hand-me-down units on the Russian Front were given war-weary models for jabo use and ran them at reduced power, but this is also true of their jabo 109Es. They were not used as front-line fighters.
The SpitV we have is a second-half-of-1941 spit. The one with +16 was a late 1943 model and totally inappropriate. The fact of the matter is that the same spit was in use when the Bf109F-4 arrived to engage it. The F-2 was there for some months before the F-4, but let there be no doubt this constant conspiracy theory has been put to rest. We have the best appropriately matched 109F-4 and SpitVb we can have.
The F-2 would round it out better, as would the E-7 (which was struggling against SpitVs for a short while until the F-1s/F-2s could help ease the pain). By no means do we have a complete planeset, but we do have a damn good matchup with our F-4 and Vb pairing. Those that disagree haven't flown both sides of it against their historical rivals. It's quite a balanced fight.
EDIT2: Footnote on the power setting... comment from kurfurst.org:
"This clearance is in fact also supported by the February 1942 release of the Bf 109F Flugzeughandbuch, which no longer notes any limitation in regards to the DB 601 E. The new Hanbuch part 7 (Powerplant) was likely to have been re-issued because of this clearance.
See D.(Luft) T. 2109F-1 bis F-4, 'Bf 109F-1 bis F-4 Flugzeug-Handbuch', Teil 6 'Triebwerksanlage', page 7., authorized in Berlin, 24 February 1942."
I would have liked to see Herman Goring get into an ME109 with his 300 pounds. I have sat in an 109 and at the time I weighed about 150 pounds and it was a tight fit for me.
-
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.beim-zeugmeister.de%2Fzeugmeister%2Findex.php%3Fid%3D38
It says 1.42 ATA. I was wondering if you had a source that says 1.42 ATA was restricted prior to December 1941?
-
It says 1.42 ATA. I was wondering if you had a source that says 1.42 ATA was restricted prior to December 1941?
See page 4 ???
-
Got it. Thanks.
-
F-4
WNF: 1046 built between 5.41 and 12.41
Erla: 795 built between 6.41 and 8.41
Erla: 219 built between 8.41 and 12.41
Total: 2060
F-1 production from 8.40 to 2.41
F-2 production from 2.41 to 8-41 > 1334 a/c
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/statistics/se28641.htm
28.5.41
E - 439
F-1/2 - 669
F-4 - 74
F - 23
So Krusty, why is there 74 F-4s, with the units they were assigned to?
Do I smell a pwn?
LOL pathetic troll attempt there... Just because they were BUILT doesn't mean they saw service... Hell the F-0 prototypes were combat tested over the UK in 1940 (some even shot down) -- does that mean it was in widespread service? Hell no.
Instead of looking up production dates, try looking up actual deployment dates. No [combat] unit had F-4s until the very end of 1941 or the beginning of 1942. One of the main problems Messerschmitt had was actually producing enough F models and getting them out to units. There was much delay, much testing before they were ever sent out. It was a major issue with the F series. Only with the later Gs did production really get streamlined and become more efficient (from a parts-to-final-squadrons perspective).
-
nstead of looking up production dates, try looking up actual deployment dates. No [combat] unit had F-4s until the very end of 1941 or the beginning of 1942.
How about you you due a little more research Krusty.
So no combat units had Bf109F-4s before the end of 1941 or the beginning of 1942. :bhead
Stab JG1, III./JG52 and III./JG77 had Bf109F-4s at the end of June 1941. :)
Stab JG1 was based at Jever Germany.
III./JG52 was based at Bukarest-Pipera Hungary.
III./JG77 was based at Bacau Romania.
-
240 copies ... I would like to have it back in my choices for the BF109F-4 and the egg as well!
(http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg151/Lud_13/001.jpg)
Ty,
-
How about you you due a little more research Krusty.
So no combat units had Bf109F-4s before the end of 1941 or the beginning of 1942. :bhead
Stab JG1, III./JG52 and III./JG77 had Bf109F-4s at the end of June 1941. :)
Stab JG1 was based at Jever Germany.
III./JG52 was based at Bukarest-Pipera Hungary.
III./JG77 was based at Bacau Romania.
If that's true, show me a photo. So many of them were around in June there should be dozens of photos. The Germans loved to take photos of all their planes, especially the new ones that arrived in units. I can't blame them. I'd have done the same.
Of the hundreds of photos I've looked over in the past month, EVERY single F-4 wasn't until much later. All earlier dates are prior versions of the -F such as F-2 (the most common).
Show me that. I'm not so sure you can, because all the records show that JG2 and the channel squadrons got priority on all 109F improvements. They got the latest and greatest variants simply because they were holding the line against much tougher opponents than any other front. This is widely agreed upon. They were the first to use the F in combat, and with every successive variant were the first to get it.
While I say JG2 and JG26 were the FIRST to receive the F-1 as a unit (this happened in March and April of 1941, there is no doubt about these dates), some individual experten aces used early model F-0s during the Battle of Britain, scoring kills and even getting shot down. These are really 1-off special cirucumstances and preferential treatment for the highest-scoring of aces. And those are units getting preferential treatment! JG27, fighting the lion's share in Africa, was only receiving F-1s and F-2s in September 1941. You're talking about Eastern Front stuff. Eastern Front got no preferential treatment with regards to delivery of 109Fs. Soviet craft were so inferior and so easy to kill they saw it as less needing than the units fighting US and RAF enemies.
Are you suggesting the entirety of the developmental cycle went from F-1 FIRST delivery to F-4s already in combat in less than 2 months? Hardly likely, since production lines were still pumping out F-1s and later F-2s for months to come. In June of 1941 the gruppenkommandeurs of JG26 were still flying F-2s (as evidenced by photographs). Position and rank had perks in the Luftwaffe. Leadership often meant access to the best equipment.
Doesn't add up.
Also, you're trying to tell me that Galland himself, the guy who selfishly pampered himself with the best latest and greatest fighter that was available (multiples, for his own personal use) was still using F-2s in on December 5, 1941, "just because"? 6 months after the F-4 was available (according to you)? His personality wouldn't allow it. He kept himself personally stocked with the best tools, but at a widely photographed event his personally modified F-2s are available for all to see. Not F-4s. And they weren't for show -- he was flying every day or as much as he could to rack up his kill tally in a competition with Molders.
Again, IMO it doesn't add up. The only way I can see it happening is some favortism giving a lone experten/ace pilot here or there an F-4 to play with, but that doesn't really count now does it? Same way F-0s seeing combat in the BOB don't really count because it was a limited number and based on favortism. Not a full squadron or even gruppe.
As for the units you list:
Of all JG1, 52, and 77, I can find dozens upon dozens of identifiable F-4 variants in photographs, but NONE before 1942. Before 1942, they are using F-2s or late-model Es.
JG52 got some 109F-4s in October 1941. Even then it wasn't complete, it was staggered inclusion amongst the F-2s. In July 1941 they were newly-equipped with F-2s for the upcoming Barbarossa campaign. They had just transitioned from 109Es. In early 1942 they still had many F-2s on hand as seen in photographs.
JG77 also got 109F-4s. Meanwhile the only photos of their 109F-4s are from 1942 in Sicily or Crimea. Even so, they were still flying Es as well. In August of 1941 photographic evidence shows staffelkapitan of 7./JG2 (and noted ace) Egon Mayer was still using an F-2.
In fact, the ONLY reference I can find that mentions an F-4 loss in July of 1941 is of JG2's geschwaderkommodore (Balthasar), supposedly when his wing sheared off during a wild maneuver. This was only reported on very early F-2 variants and super-early F-4s and was fixed in production before many could be affected. Considering the wing had to be redesigned and strengthened, this problem was mostly only seen on early F-2s before they fixed it on the production lines. Much like the weakened tail. I think this entry from the "aces of..." book is in error, because the Osprey book dedicated to JG2 shows they had F-2s on hand 24 hours before Balthasar's death. The Osprey book also shows the first combat loss of 109Fs for JG2 was on 17 June 1941 (this specifically the F-2s they had just been converting to). This is further supported by the fact that noted ace and commander of III./JG2, Hans "Assi" Hahn, was still flying an F-2 well into August 1941, based on photographic evidence.
It *IS* possible Balthasar got the one and only F-4 available at the time because of his status and rank. But that hardly is representative of what the rest of the Luftwaffe was flying at the time. Much like the F-0s that scored kills during the Battle of Britain, it doesn't mean the 109F was "in service" at that time.
Just a quick tally:
aces of north africa and mediterranean: 20 different 109F-4s profiled, earliest by a long shot was Nov 1941, all others in 1942.
aces of the russian front: 8 109F-4s profiled, none earlier than 1942.
aces of the western front: 5 109F-4s profiled, earliest date being "autumn 1941"... (not very specific)
-
Noooooooooo! Why would you do that to such a beautiful aircraft!? :cry :huh
I agree the 109F-4 is the best flying 109 in the set and I would hate to see attachments that would mess with the lines of the wings.. I love that little bird.
:P
-
Oblt Lossnitz of 8./JG52 crashed his Bf109F-4, WNr 7020, into the ground and was killed on July 1 1941. This a/c came from the block 6999-7660 produced from 5.41 and 12.41 at WNF.
Please note that Balthasar was flying WNr 7066 (from the block 6999-7660 produced from 5.41 and 12.41 at WNF). The next loss of a Bf109F-4 was on Oct 21 1941 (WNr7075). In Dec 1941, loss reports of Bf109F-4s increased.
Also note that a Bf109E-4/B (WNr2657) was lost by I./JG2 on July 7 1941 as well as several Bf109E-7s of I./JG2 also lost in July 1941. There was even a loss of a Bf109E-7 in Nov 1941 by I./JG2 as well as a Bf109E-4.
http://www.ww2.dk/misc/jg2loss.pdf
Now what were you saying about priority.
I guess you missed the photos of Hptm Franz von Werra of I./JG53 and Major Hans Truenbach of Stab JG52 Krusty. :)
I repeat,
F-4
WNF: 1046 built between 5.41 and 12.41
Erla: 795 built between 6.41 and 8.41
Erla: 219 built between 8.41 and 12.41
F-1 production from 8.40 to 2.41 Note F-1 production ended in Feb 1941
F-2 production from 2.41 to 8-41
172 a/c built between 1.41 and 4.41 at WNF
192 a/c built between 2.41 and 5.41 at Erla
As can be easily seen, WNF began building Bf109F-4s in May 1941 as Bf109F-2 production had ended in April 1941.
Erla began building Bf109F-4s in June 1941 as Bf109F-2 production had ended in May 1941.
Also note that Radinger/Otto say the bf109F-4 entered service in June 1941.
I guess those 74 Bf109F-4s on the Luftwaffe books on June 28 1941 were some sort of typo error.
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/statistics/se28641.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/statistics/se27941.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/statistics/se271241.htm
-
Jg27 september 41
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/109F44-jg27_zps812f43d3.jpg)
By Late 41 the Soviets had allready givin us 2 109F-4 for inspection, here at Wright Field in late 41
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/109F4WrightField_zpsf8a15993.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/109F4WrightField1_zps8c4a3119.jpg)
-
Milo, I personally don't trust that website. It doesn't list any references and IMO is too general in most cases (simply listing 109F for most, not going into specifics by what models are used in most cases including 109Es as well).
And, there were 109Es still flying combat in late 1942, so what's your point? We're not talking about how long 109Es served. We're talking how EARLY 109F-4s served widespread. If you recall this discussion was about the power restriction settings and when the 109F-4 woul have encountered such restrictions. A single plane doesn't really count, and if you see I said that very thing in the previous post I made with my reasoning. A single unrepresentative example doesn't mean that the vast majority of 109F-4s suffered prolonged power restrictions -- because the vast majority did not.
Megalodon, EB-1 was turned over in 1943. Your book is WAY off. And your photo with the guns has oft been attibuted to an F-1 in almost all other sources. The center gun is another rifle-caliber gun because the MG/FF was too unreliable. MG151/20s were MUCH longer and larger than the MG17s mounted above them. Barrel length for an MG17 was about 25 inches, but for the MG151/20 it was 43 inches (and longer for the MG151, at 45 inches).
Just a quick reference for you:
http://www.dark-history.eu/images/The%204%20guns%20in%20a%20FW-190A-6.jpg
There's no way that's an F-4 with that guns setup.
-
The center gun is another rifle-caliber gun because the MG/FF was too unreliable. MG151/20s were MUCH longer and larger than the MG17s mounted above them. Barrel length for an MG17 was about 25 inches, but for the MG151/20 it was 43 inches (and longer for the MG151, at 45 inches).
It is not a rifle calibre gun. It is a Mauser cannon. The mounting plate with which the cannon would be attached to the engine is there and easily recognizeable (clearly illustrated in Me109's fuselage weapons manual). The mounting unit brings the back clearly behind the engine and that is one reason why not more of the barrel is visual. Again, what is visible behind the barrel in that engineless 109 pic isn't part of the gun but part of the mounting unit.
(http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/Luftwaffe/Engines/DB605_MG151_20.jpg)
Source: http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/Luftwaffe/Engines/DB.htm (http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/Luftwaffe/Engines/DB.htm)
The back end of the cannon reaches far behind the engine.
MG151/20 attached to the mounting unit:
(http://www.lonesentry.com/ordnance/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/mg-151-aircraft-cannon.jpg)
It can be seen how the mounting unit "reduces" the amount of barrel that would be visible beyond the firewall when engine is not attached.
And of course due to the angle from which the photo is taken from it appears that the muzzle of the cannon is at the same distance from the firewall as the machine gun muzzles. Of course even the machine gun muzzels themselves aren't at the same distance from the firewall as the guns are staggered.
-
This is what you said Krusty,
I'm not so sure you can, because all the records show that JG2 and the channel squadrons got priority on all 109F improvements.
This not true and why I showed Bf109Es with JG2.
To general?
I lumped the Es together but the undesignated Fs are only 3% of the Fs.
28.5.41
E - 439
F-1/2 - 669
F-4 - 74
F - 26
So the site is not specific enough for you Krusty. Is this specific enough for you from the same site?
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg2.html
On 28.6.41, 6% (74 out of 1213) of the fighters force were Bf109F-4s. Only Stab/JG2, Stab/JG26, Erg./JG51, Erg./JG53 and Erg./JG54 (26 a/c) don't have a designation number for the F.
On 27.9.41, 28% (323 out of 1137) of the fighter force were Bf109F-4s. Only Erg./JG51 and Erg./JG52 (12 a/c) don't have a designation number for the F.
-
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/109F4jg52_zps650c84ae.jpg)
The Book is wrong, :old:
-
From the same page? The same page that says they were around in June 1941? Yeah... same error. Same authors making the same mistake.
Prien & Rodeike have tens upon tens years under their belt in researching Luftwaffe combing through German war archives. The first found losses per variant come from the German loss report documents. The proof won't get much more definate than that.
If you are going to just casually mention "Same authors making the same mistake", you are going need to present explicit evidence on how and why they are wrong and why you are right.
Your personal "I think so" reasoning won't cut it. You are not a source of any kind. As said before, I'll take their word over yours any day of the week.
-
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/109F4-b-4bombs_zpse951fe6d.jpg)
I dont trust that website, :old:
-
6/10 on the Krusty scale.