Wish List: BF109 Gunpods and rockets?

How about make a 109G6/G14 combo module and give it the option to carry gun pods as an extra selling point so people have a reason to buy it over the K4?

45 minutes ago, Snapage said:

How about make a 109G6/G14 combo module and give it the option to carry gun pods as an extra selling point so people have a reason to buy it over the K4?

I would buy the 109G6/G14 in a heart beat, no questions asked really.

G6 was listed in the coming WWII modules so we'll see it eventually, and G models obviously featured gun pods. I foresee though you all won't like them once being able to carry ,

S!

As someone who only flies Allied airplanes, I say yes. Please hang those big, heavy gunpods on the 109K. It'll slow it down, and make it a whole lot less maneuverable. I think it's a wonderful idea.

why would anyone limit themselves to just one set of aircraft?

On 7/21/2021 at 4:00 PM, Ala13_ManOWar said:

G6 was listed in the coming WWII modules so we'll see it eventually, and G models obviously featured gun pods. I foresee though you all won't like them once being able to carry ,

 

S!

.nvm

Gunpods for the 109k are needed only for bomber intercepts not for dogfights

+1 for MG151/20 pods

+1

Love this idea. All 109’s should have them as default, no option.

On 7/28/2021 at 9:46 PM, greiffer said:

Gunpods for the 109k are needed only for bomber intercepts not for dogfights

They do a nice job on ground targets (in IL-2) also!

gunpods on any 109 is a good thing!!

On 7/28/2021 at 9:46 PM, greiffer said:

Gunpods for the 109k are needed only for bomber intercepts not for dogfights

No, they aren't since there's no historical record of any K ever using them despite the manual mentioning it. Apparently it was only a G models thing for a reason.

3 minutes ago, greiffer said:

gunpods on any 109 is a good thing!!

Not really. I'm only expecting some day, maybe in K model if devs finally succumb to users' claims despite they being unhistorical, or if we see any proper G model sometime, you people complaining about what an utter piece of cr** underwings cannons are when you discover your nimble 109 being sluggish and draggy as hell .

people should mind their own business.

ED should develop the gunpods and if someone doesn't want them then don't use them.

Let other people be happy. The module is not only yours.

Historical facts aren't yours either , and this is not WT to ask for weird paperwaffe things .

On 3/6/2022 at 1:24 PM, Ala13_ManOWar said:

Historical facts aren't yours either , and this is not WT to ask for weird paperwaffe things .

The AV-8B we have in DCS can carry and fire IR Mavs just because it could theoretically do it. No Marine squadron ever used the IR Mav.
Given this precedent, there should be no issues giving the K4 wing mounted cannons

.

And to my knowledge, no Fw-190 D9 ever used the Wr21 so they can remove it

vor 4 Minuten schrieb Blackbird12:

And to my knowledge, no Fw-190 D9 ever used the Wr21 so they can remove it

Haha and add it to the bf-109.

And none of us ever flew in WWII so..

On 3/10/2022 at 6:43 PM, Krez said:

The AV-8B we have in DCS can carry and fire IR Mavs just because it could theoretically do it. No Marine squadron ever used the IR Mav.
Given this precedent, there should be no issues giving the K4 wing mounted cannons

.

But it's not an ED module and those choices can be up to every developer .

For a modern aircraft I guess It's easier to get than kind of info, but in WWII it's not that simple, it's not only "knowing" it was used, or not, which can be hard enough, but once you get to know this or that equipment was or could be used in this or that aircraft you have to find the info relative to how it works internally and together with the plane and I believe that can be even more painful than just finding a picture of the thing being used .

I'm in for the Wgr21 removal in Dora, yeah, it was never meant to be a bomber interceptor .

All we have are historians who state the K4 could equip and did equip the gun pods.
I'm tempted to purchase those books to see what sources they are using.

K4 use was limited during ww2 and k4 with gun pods looks even less likely to happen, this is my view on this topic.

I think instead of K-4 (being already fantastic), we should try and get an earlier Bf-109 model in the game. I think it would be really cool if we got a Bf-109E variant but CLoD already has it so maybe an F-1 variant with wing-mounted rocket-pods would be better

I still think an E-1 or E-3/4 would be nice to have to fight the Soviet I-16

On 3/6/2022 at 9:26 AM, Gioepyon said:

people should mind their own business.

Or we could instead read what the platform is supposed to be achieving and what the modules is supposed to achieve, and then decide whether it's right for you or not.

On 3/6/2022 at 9:26 AM, Gioepyon said:

ED should develop the gunpods and if someone doesn't want them then don't use them.

So something that opens the gates to literally anything.

I could make the argument that the Fw 190 should be twice as fast as it should be following your exact argument to the letter.

On 3/10/2022 at 5:43 PM, Krez said:

The AV-8B we have in DCS can carry and fire IR Mavs just because it could theoretically do it.

And actually did...

The whole AGM-65F debacle was because RAZBAM decided that the Harrier should be a 2010s Harrier seemingly ad hoc, justifying the inclusion of LITENING G4, APKWS and GBU-54 LJDAM, when before it was more of a 2000s AV-8B N/A, where AGM-65F is absolutely accurate (as is AGM-122, which is also out of inventory).

There's historical evidence USMC AV-8B N/As carried and employed the AGM-65F in the Gulf, and the missile is described in official aircraft docuementation.

On 3/10/2022 at 5:43 PM, Krez said:

No Marine squadron ever used the IR Mav.

Would you like to explain this then?

Or this?

Or this?

RAZBAM's claim that the USMC never used the AGM-65F on the AV-8B N/A and there's no evidence to support that they did is outright false.

On 3/10/2022 at 5:43 PM, Krez said:

Given this precedent, there should be no issues giving the K4 wing mounted cannons

How is it a precedent? All you've done is say "well x is unrealistic, so y should be too" without justifying why and just taking it as a given.

Worse is that it's for a module that is completely unrelated to the K4, by a different developer.

If gunpods are accurate however, then I'm all for it.

Everything I've read says the Marines never used the AGM-65F. You have secondary sources that have quotes from a pilot which states they did, which is ironic since the only sources for the 109 K4 carrying gun pods are secondary sources that have quotes from pilots.
 

I think people are just wanting some consistency.