109 G6 missing something?

[MachNum]

... me I'm of the opinion, from everything I've read, that the 109s were DEADLY in the hands of an experienced pilot and 1 v 1 MOST allied pilots would be in some REAL trouble meeting such.  The EDGE the allies had wasn't so much the P51 but more the NUMBERS fielded.  Germany had some of the finest tanks but the number of T34's and sherman's  just overwhelmed them.  And I think CT would be BETTER for all and more of a challenge and show just how truly difficult it really was for the allies with a better 109.

Of course numbers wasn't the entire answer. Certainly by 1944, the Luftwaffe was suffering from the losses of their more experienced pilots and the lack of training they were able to give their new pilots. I've always been of the school of thought that it was much more the quality of the pilot rather than the quality of the equipment that mattered.

[Vulcan]

I bow in the humbling presence of true greatness...


...my bowing or your comment has nothing to do with the topic at hand, though.

You sure have a chip on your shoulder don't you

Actually I'm not that good, if you look at my k/d ratio etc you'll see I'm decidedly average.

[iTunes]

Well Squire my friend, I'm glad I didn't layout any cash on good ol' Kurfurst getting back to me, was a forlon hope I know, but worth the effort. Thing is, I really enjoyed is posts, they were usually very interesting to read.
Can't remember who it was that had almost daily battles with him on the bbs RE: Engine and flight performance, think it might have been Angus?
Anyway no news as of yet!

[Masherbrum]

As it stands now, the K4 is the best non-perk plane in the game.   

I strongly disagree with this statement. 

[Gixer]

I strongly disagree with this statement. 

Not sure if I'd say the best either, though not far behind. But it's certainly up there in the top 5 non perk rides and the best LW ride.


<S>...-Gixer

[Gixer]

Sorry, double post..

[Anaxogoras]

To be honest, I think that is HTC's intent.  I believe that ultimately, HTC wants everything that had a credible representation during the war, in the game.  The priorities and timeline with which they accomplish that feat is completely up to them.

I wish I agreed with you.  Naturally, it's true that priorities and timelines are up to them, but a rational reconstruction of what they've done up to this point doesn't support the notion that they want everything that had a credible representation during the war, in the game.  First of all, no aircraft should ever be removed from the game if your goal is to represent as much as possible, nor should they have loadouts removed that were used in combat.  However, the Spitfire V had 120 rpg for its 20mm cannon, but was downgraded to an earlier version with only 60 rpg.  I don't even wanna get into the arguments over the 109G-10, but it's clear the 109G-6 suffered a fate similar to the Spit V.  If HTC's goal were as you say, then both loadouts would have remained in the game, and the ENY system would take care of the rest.  Secondly, you wouldn't add aircraft like the Ta-152.  As cool as I think it is, adding it in front of other aircraft that were produced in larger numbers and which saw more combat is backwards, e.g. J2M, Ki-43, 109G-6/AS, Do-217, G4M, 190A-3, Yak-9D, I-16, Pe-2, Yak-1, A6M3...the list goes on and on.

The pattern of behavior I see is this:  Start with popular, late war aircraft that make for a playable main arena.  2/3 of new additions will also be popular, mid/late war rides that can compete in the main arena, and 1/3 of new additions will be less competitive rides that work well for scenarios (this strategy will require dubious substitutions and the near absence of entire theaters of war).  Once the bare minimum in aircraft diversity has been met, focus on other stuff like ground vehicles and pipe dreams like combat tour.

Fwiw, I agree with step 1, starting with popular, late war aircraft that make for a playable main arena.  It's all the subsequent steps that I disagree with.  Once you get a fun arena going, it's time to start adding aircraft that complete scenario planesets, e.g. don't stop with the Ju88 and say it's good enough for the BoB.  Then you might move on to Africa and say, hmmmm... The 109F-4 isn't enough, we'll also need a 109E-7 and a 109F-2...and so on. That's how you would go about adding everything that had a credible representation during the war, in the game.

[toonces3]

First thought:  I wonder if it is, perhaps, possible to have too many choices in the hangar.  Kind of like having too many people in one main arena.  It gets to the point that, by having too many planes, you somehow dillute the experience in some manner.  This idea isn't fleshed out, but think on it for a bit.  It's one thing to have 50 choices...it's another to have 150 choices.  At some point they start to blur together...

Second thought:  If you're going to disagree with my assertion about the K4, you have to post a reason why.   

[toonces3]

Oh, and to be fair, I think the K4 is the best non-perk fighter because:

1.  one shot, one kill ability
2.  extremely fast
3.  extremely good climb rate
4.  good 'all around' performance- turn rate, acceleration, speed, climb, hitting power, fuel

The K4 is one of the few planes in the set where, finding myself in a bad situation, I go UP instead of DOWN.  In fact, the only thing I really find a disadvantage with the K4 is that it compresses so easily in a dive. 

[Anaxogoras]

The K4 is one of the few planes in the set where, finding myself in a bad situation, I go UP instead of DOWN.  In fact, the only thing I really find a disadvantage with the K4 is that it compresses so easily in a dive. 

It has heavy controls, the opposite of compression.

[Wmaker]

EDIT: I will leave you with Wotan/Brunos comments on it:

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,162110.0.html

"1/3 of all G-6s didn't have 3cm, you were shown this in the other thread. Since the G-6 has been re-done to reflect an earlier G-6 (framed canopy, regular tail) its a G-6 that would rarely have 3cm, especially in '43. As I said to Kurfurst about the F-4 gondolas a G-6 with 3cm as an option will get 'abused' and you end up seeing far more G-6/U4s then ever saw service. See Butch's post in the linked thread. In '43 there were only 181 G-6/U4 produced. Less then 15% of the total number of G-6s (12k) produced overall were G-6/U4s."

I have already adressed pretty much all these issues. The fact that you insist on posting same arguments over and over again (the canopy) tells me you either haven't read my posts at all or that your mind was made up before you even came to this thread. I suspect the latter. It was funny how you said that how guys who want this loadout option should make a good case about while at the same time you yourself weren't even considering changing your mind no matter what evidence came up.

Consistency, consistency, consistency, that is all I want, nothing more, nothing less.

"1/3 of all G-6s didn't have 3cm, you were shown this in the other thread. Since the G-6 has been re-done to reflect an earlier G-6 (framed canopy, regular tail) its a G-6 that would rarely have 3cm, especially in '43."

It is true that 1/3 of the G-6s weren't /U4s. Atleast 1634 of 12000 G-6s produced were /U4s. That is 13,6% of the total production compared to 10,7% La-7s delivered with 3xB-20 (368/3442). It is also good to remember that AH-wise La-7 changed very little during it's production while even inside the G-6 subvariant changes were a lot more prominent. That 12000 figure includes both G-6/ASs and G-6/U3s (MW-50) which have different performance compared to AHs G-6. To have fair comparison, only DB605A-1 engined G-6s should be counted.

"Since the G-6 has been re-done to reflect an earlier G-6 (framed canopy, regular tail) its a G-6 that would rarely have 3cm, especially in '43."

Like I've shown, hundreds of /U4s (the majority of the /U4s, most probably) actually had exactly the same canopy as AHs G-6 currently has. Framed canopy with Gallandpanzer started appearing in production roughly at the same time with /U4-variant (mid-1943). G-6s with same canopy as in AH were produced well into '44.

This is how a big portion ot the 109G-6/U4s looked:


"G-6 with 3cm as an option will get 'abused' and you end up seeing far more G-6/U4s then ever saw service."

Exactly the same thing can be said about La-7 with three cannons and NS-37 cannons on IL-2 for example. It doesn't matter in the MA anyway and as a loadout option /U4 is exactly in the same boat as La-7 with three cannons when it comes to special events.

"In '43 there were only 181 G-6/U4 produced."

Prien and Rodeike for example seem to disagree with this. It is entirely possible that Butch2k has discovered some better sources, though. Either way it really does not matter at all. Why should G-6 be the only plane that shouldn't have loadouts which were introduced later in it's service life? We have Panzerblitz-rockets for the 109F-8, 3xB-20 option for the La-7, Rockets for the P-51D and so on.

[Anaxogoras]

It is true that 1/3 of the G-6s weren't /U4s. Atleast 1634 of 12000 G-6s produced were /U4s. That is 13,6% of the total production compared to 10,7% La-7s delivered with 3xB-20 (368/3442). It is also good to remember that AH-wise La-7 changed very little during it's production while even inside the G-6 subvariant changes were a lot more prominent. That 12000 figure includes both G-6/ASs and G-6/U3s (MW-50) which have different performance compared to AHs G-6. To have fair comparison, only DB605A-1 engined G-6s should be counted.

Don't forget the 109G-6/U2 with GM-1!

[Wmaker]

Don't forget the 109G-6/U2 with GM-1!

Rgr, those too.

Except the /AS-versions, they aren't all too easy to identify from the WNr.-blocks, or at least I don't have such data.

EDIT/Heh, checked again, (most) /U2s can be found easily too, it's those /U3s that and embedded into the bigger blocks that I don't have the info for.

345 /U2s I know of, plus 686 /ASs./EDIT

[Anaxogoras]

Here is what I have for the G-6 AS from Bf 109 F, G & K Series, by Prien and Rodeike.

"Total Production of the G-6/AS was thus 686 machines, broken down as follows:

Mtt Reg.  G-6/AS  226 aircraft - new production, batch 165000
Erla Antw.  G-6/AS  11 aircraft - conversion
Erla Antw.  G-6/U4/AS  1 aircraft - conversion
Erla Antw.  G-6/U2/AS  95 aircraft - conversion
Erla Antw.  G-6/U2/R2/AS  23 aircraft - conversion
Mi-Metall  G-6/U4/AS  132 aircraft - conversion
Mi-Metall  G-6/U2/AS  98 aircraft - conversion
Blohm und Voss  G-6/U4/AS  20 aircraft - conversion
Blohm und Voss  G-6/U2/AS  80 aircraft - conversion

...One of the first losses was suffered on 8 May 1944 when Fw. Karemitz of 8./JG 1 was killed in combat with P-47s while flying Werknummer 20629; base on its Werknummer this aircraft was a converted G-6, as production block 20600 was delivered from August 1943."

So converted G-6/AS did not receive their own Werknummer.  Do these aircraft count in the total production of 12,000?

[Wmaker]

Just my personal estimate, based on a few numbers...I'd say that around 16,5% of the DB605A-1 engined G-6s produced were U4s.