Author Topic: For the upcoming Bf110G revisions...  (Read 11729 times)

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
For the upcoming Bf110G revisions...
« on: November 30, 2016, 03:39:32 PM »
With the 110C remodel in the works, it's logical to assume/guess that the 110G is also coming very shortly on its heels.

There is a subtle change we need when that happens. In short, we need to be able to separate out certain weapons options so that they can be enabled/disabled in scenarios and SEA use. Very specifically we need to be able to represent the early 110Gs and also keep the bomber hunter and ground attack loadouts as viable historic options. For example, in the past we've tried to run 1943 era setups with 110Gs and lancasters, but those 30mm were too much of a problem. Also it's been a problem in designing scenarios and events in the past when the ground attack 110Gs were super effective at taking down buildings and vehicles because of those 30mm.

Here is the solution:

The Bf110G underwent a number of major armament changes in its lifetime. Its performance was basically the same as the engines did not change, but it started out nearly the same as the 110C, but then increased in a number of definite stages for various reasons at different timeframes of the war. I will briefly summarize them and then lay out a way to allow each of these as needed. MA use wouldn't be impacted much if at all.


First: The initial loadout was 4x MG17s in the upper nose and 2x MG151/20 in the cabin floor. These were belt fed and an improvement over the MG/FF of the 110C4.

These were, however, severely underpowered for attacking aircraft. They were used to good effect in ground attack roles but when the 110Gs had to go up against bombers they struggled in the lean times before the 30mm were available. Often removed from air to air units entirely as other weapons were added on.

They removed the 7mms in the nose and put in a big under-belly gunpod that looked like a rowboat. This had essentially the 2x20mm gunpod we have now, but with more drag. Total loadout: 4x20mm cannon at the expense of centerline ord. This loadout was undesirable in most ways, but it was the only way for quite some time to up the cannon loadout against heavy bombers. Later, the gunpod became a little more streamlined, but still had a major drag penalty. I suggest we just limit ourselves to the later gunpod as a compromise (it's already in-game).

Once the 30mms came around those gunpod loadouts were instantly gone never to return. The 30mms more than made up for them and there were still the MG151/20s in the cabin floor as well. This is similar to our default loadout for the 110G right now.

In terms of AH we need to allow for those historic loadouts while also allowing external ords of whatever variety you need for the mission at hand.

Here we have a small problem. We need to be able to separate the options out so that some can be disabled for SEA/scenario use to get an era-appropriate loadout. However, the gunpod makes a little bit of an issue. You could create some unhistorical combinations with it, BUT Hitech has said before (re: US planes with 2x DT and 10x rkt) that he won't limit it to absolutely historic combinations, as long as each loadout was historically accurate. That allows the players to mix and match within historical possibilities. For example, you'd never see a 110G ground attacker with wing bombs and 30mm that strafed buildings into oblivion, or one with the gunpod used for strafing and wing bombs to attack towns/fields. These happen all the time in AH and this wouldn't stop that for MA use. SEA/events would be able to disable loadouts as needed to lock in a certain historical setup.

To that end I see no easy way other than making that gunpod a separate loadout for the external ord. If we don't do this, then we have to have each of the above combinations with AND without both bomb types and/or the gunpod. That's how AH is right now, and with the new sub options required it would get VERY long very fast. The solution is very easy, just split up the loadouts to their proper arms trees in the hangar. What I am suggesting doesn't change anything you can do right now already. It just changes where they are in the hangar options.

PROPOSED INTERNAL LOADOUTS FOR HANGAR:

1) Default: 4x MG17, 2x MG151/20 (+ rear gun assumed on all below)
2) 2x MG151/20 in nose, no MG17 (smoothed over gunports)
3) 2x MG151/20 and 2x MK108 30mm in nose

CENTRAL EXTERNAL HARDPOINT LOADOUTS

1) 2x MG151/20 in slim gunpod (i.e. currently modeled version)
2) 2x 250kg bombs
3) 2x 500kg bombs

WING EXTERNAL HARDPOINT LOADOUTS (no changes)

1) 4x 250kg bombs
2) 2x WGr 210 rockets
3) 4x WGr 210 rockets
4) 2x drop tank


TL;DR: Move the 20mm gunpod and the bombs to their own list. Add a 20mm-only nose option. Add a 4x7mm nose option. Historic reasons. Benefits us all. Scenarios cheer, etc.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: For the upcoming Bf110G revisions...
« Reply #1 on: November 30, 2016, 06:58:59 PM »
Well argued.

 :aok
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline 38ruk

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2121
      • @pump_upp - best crypto pumps on telegram !
Re: For the upcoming Bf110G revisions...
« Reply #2 on: December 01, 2016, 01:33:57 AM »
Very nice proposal, makes sense imho

Offline PR3D4TOR

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2884
Re: For the upcoming Bf110G revisions...
« Reply #3 on: December 01, 2016, 09:23:13 AM »
In the bomber-destroyer role there were also 110G's fitted with MG 151/20 cannons in place of the MK 108s in the upper nose. This particular plane is carrying six 20mm cannon.



It was also a common configuration for 110 night fighters because the MK 108s produced blindingly large muzzle flashes.
No gods or kings. Only Predator.

Offline morfiend

  • AH Training Corps
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10453
Re: For the upcoming Bf110G revisions...
« Reply #4 on: December 01, 2016, 12:42:55 PM »
What no luv for the 37mm central gondie??? :furious :furious :furious



    :salute

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: For the upcoming Bf110G revisions...
« Reply #5 on: December 01, 2016, 08:56:31 PM »
predator, those were a stop-gap step and not as common. Especially for the night fighters because the glare. They much preferred no guns in top of the nose and all guns under the belly. That was the best for them. For the sake of keeping it "mainstream" and with as few changes as possible while still allowing for scenario disabling of different loadouts, I left those out.

Morf, it wasn't really an option. It was used on an earlier model of the 110C but only about 7 were built. The 37mm wasn't a good gun for these aircraft.

Offline PR3D4TOR

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2884
Re: For the upcoming Bf110G revisions...
« Reply #6 on: December 01, 2016, 09:29:58 PM »
More Krusty-nonsense. The 110G-2/R1 and R4 carried the 3.7 cm Bordkanone. They served first with PzJgSt/ZG1 in late 1942 and later fought at Kursk in the anti-tank role. They also served as bomber-destroyers. Photographic evidence is ample.

















No gods or kings. Only Predator.

Offline morfiend

  • AH Training Corps
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10453
Re: For the upcoming Bf110G revisions...
« Reply #7 on: December 02, 2016, 12:46:57 AM »
^^^^

  Thats what I was talking about!  The 110C had the Mk 101 30mm installed in a few,mostly to attack shipping but the 110G's used the 37mm in both air and ground roles!  Imagine 66 rds of BK3.7 rounds cental mounted... :x

 IIRC there were 6 rounds loaded and the rear gunner had access upto anothe 10 boxes of 6 rounds.


   While the 110C with the 30mm might have been rare I dont think the 110G's with 37mm guns were rare at all!




    :salute

Offline PR3D4TOR

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2884
Re: For the upcoming Bf110G revisions...
« Reply #8 on: December 02, 2016, 05:13:11 AM »
This 3.7 cm toting 110G also has MG 151/20 upper nose guns, so it's an R4 variant with the MK 108s replaced by MG 151s. Makes a lot of sense when your main armament is a high velocity gun. The MK 108 would be quite useless at the range you want to be at with the 3.7 cm.

« Last Edit: December 02, 2016, 05:36:30 AM by PR3D4TOR »
No gods or kings. Only Predator.

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: For the upcoming Bf110G revisions...
« Reply #9 on: December 02, 2016, 10:04:13 AM »
Predator, you cherry pick your data. Just because a picture exists doesn't prove your point. Nor does it require you to insult me.


to reference a book as listed on falkeins blog,

Quote
This heavily armed Bf 110 variant was trialed both for gound attack duties on the Eastern Front and in daylight battles against USAAF bombing raids without enjoying any major success in either role! Evaluation involving several aircraft was carried by the Versuchskommando für Panzerkämpfung (anti-tank trials unit) at Rechlin and moving to Russia for field evaluation in April 1943. The evaluation was apparently not favourable for this version and it was then turned over to Erprobungskommando 25 for evaluation against USAAF bombers. The top speed was found to be only slightly higher than that of the B-17s and B-24s and lateral stability was poor which impared the aiming. A total of 43 G-3 and 107 G-2 airframes were scheduled for modification but only a handful have been confirmed as being accepted by ZG 76 early in 1944.

("Messerschmitt Bf 110", Ron Mackay, Crowood, Page 121)

EDIT2: On second review it is "possible" the upper 20mm in that picture were on a later test airframe that was one of the few that ZG76 took. They'd be around during the 30mm Mk108 era. I've edited my post-script.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2016, 10:56:18 AM by Krusty »

Offline save

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2852
Re: For the upcoming Bf110G revisions...
« Reply #10 on: December 02, 2016, 06:33:37 PM »
I'm with Krusty on this one, not the few and far between should be modeled.

The Fw190A8 with 30mm should have it's 13mm removed in the R2 version.


The problem with the 110 as buff destroyer version is that most bombers just fly away from them, flying in formation at WEP/100%, which make them less effective than they where.



My ammo last for 6 Lancasters, or one Yak3.
"And the Yak 3 ,aka the "flying Yamato"..."
-Caldera

Offline PR3D4TOR

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2884
Re: For the upcoming Bf110G revisions...
« Reply #11 on: December 02, 2016, 08:27:07 PM »
See Rule #4
« Last Edit: December 13, 2016, 04:28:09 PM by Skuzzy »
No gods or kings. Only Predator.

Online Oldman731

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9434
Re: For the upcoming Bf110G revisions...
« Reply #12 on: December 02, 2016, 10:34:19 PM »
The primary use of this gun in AH would be for ground attack, not chasing bombers.


...er....sez who....?

- oldman

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: For the upcoming Bf110G revisions...
« Reply #13 on: December 02, 2016, 11:27:00 PM »
so predator's just devolved into insult spewing. Frak if I know what I did to piss him off, other than to show him how few of his requested loadout actually flew.

Save: That's one way... However I don't know if we really have the R2 armor on that. It seems to get damaged super easily in the areas that an R2 would be more armored. It's a different topic, but I'd much rather have a proper A8 without all the weight modeled in. I suppose we could do with both at some point.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2016, 11:28:36 PM by Krusty »

Offline PR3D4TOR

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2884
Re: For the upcoming Bf110G revisions...
« Reply #14 on: December 02, 2016, 11:38:25 PM »

...er....sez who....?

- oldman

Says physics. The 110G has enough problems catching bombers without the added drag of a BK. Save is right about that part. Against vehicles otoh. a 110 with 66 rounds of 37 mm is a very attractive prospect.
No gods or kings. Only Predator.