Jump to content

Just wondering.....


BAT-2I

Recommended Posts

 

The Spit Mk IX was fielded in the middle of '42,

 

 

Correction:

 

The Spitfire F Mk. IX was fielded in 1942 powered by a Merlin 61 rated to +15Lb/sq in of boost.

 

Later versions of the F had the Merlin 63 rated to +18Lb/sq in of boost.

 

In both cases the aircraft's top speed was achieved at ~27.000ft.

 

We don't have an F Mk. IX in DCS.

 

The Spitfire LF Mk.IX (which we do have in DCS) first entered service in March 1943. It has a Merlin 66 rated to +18Lb/sq in of boost. It achieves it's top speed at 22,000ft.

 

There are numerous small but significant cosmetic differences between the F.IX and the LF.IX.

 

So no, the DCS LF.IX is not a chronologically suitable match for the F-4 or G-1. A G-6 however...

 

 

The people who want the 109G6 seem to be people that predominantly fly allied planes. I guess it's because they don't like how well the 109K4 performs compared to thier aircraft.

 

I think the current plane set is about as balanced as you can get and is historically accurate.150 octane for the P51D will make the 109K4 the only viable fighter on a side that only has two fighters(FW190 and 109). I think the FW190D is already not very good as is.

 

Trying to replace the 109K4 with the 109G6 will create an environment where german pilots will not be able to compete. Both the spitfire 9 and P51D will be at a huge advantage over the german aircraft.

 

If you want both balance and historical accuracy then the current plane set is good for 1945. If I was going to have another late war 109 it would be the 109G14. But it would have to have something the K4 doesnt have(the option to mount extra wing cannons for example).

 

An AI G6 is needed though.

 

Huh?

 

I do wish you 109 fanbois would get you arguments straight, or at least speak with some sort of coherent voice on the G-6.

 

One minute half you argue "G-6 is craplane, don't want" and on the other hand you have a section vociferously arguing that the later G-6 models with MW50 had performance so close to the K-4 that the K-4 makes a good stand in, so good in fact that there's no point in making a G-6!

 

Snappage, it ain't about balance, least not for me. It's not a stat thing or an airquake thing or an ego thing.

 

I just want to fly prototypical aircraft against prototypical opponents on prototypical maps.

 

If we had a low countries/Rhineland map I'd be happier with the K-4, (and the Dora) but even then I'd prefer a G-14 or similar as it better represents what the bulk of what the Jadgflieger 109 units flew during the autumn winter of '44. However, I'd fly it and you'd hear nary a complaint from I about K-4s and D-9s.

 

But we don't. We have now two WW2 maps that both the K-4 and the D-9 never saw service over.

 

I'd even rather have a P-51B and a razorback -47 for the Normandy and Channel maps but at least the two variants we do have do not have performance so widely different than that of those that would better suit.

 

The same can not be said for the K-4 and D-9.


Edited by DD_Fenrir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correction:

 

The Spitfire F Mk. IX was fielded in 1942 powered by a Merlin 61 rated to +15Lb/sq in of boost.

 

Later versions of the F had the Merlin 63 rated to +18Lb/sq in of boost.

 

In both cases the aircraft's top speed was achieved at ~27.000ft.

 

We don't have an F Mk. IX in DCS.

 

The Spitfire LF Mk.IX (which we do have in DCS) first entered service in March 1943. It has a Merlin 66 rated to +18Lb/sq in of boost. It achieves it's top speed at 22,000ft.

 

There are numerous small but significant cosmetic differences between the F.IX and the LF.IX.

 

So no, the DCS LF.IX is not a chronologically suitable match for the F-4 or G-1. A G-6 however...

 

 

 

 

Huh?

 

I do wish you 109 fanbois would get you arguments straight, or at least speak with some sort of coherent voice on the G-6.

 

One minute half you argue "G-6 is craplane, don't want" and on the other hand you have a section vociferously arguing that the later G-6 models with MW50 had performance so close to the K-4 that the K-4 makes a good stand in, so good in fact that there's no point in making a G-6!

 

Snappage, it ain't about balance, least not for me. It's not a stat thing or an airquake thing or an ego thing.

 

I just want to fly prototypical aircraft against prototypical opponents on prototypical maps.

 

If we had a low countries/Rhineland map I'd be happier with the K-4, (and the Dora) but even then I'd prefer a G-14 or similar as it better represents what the bulk of what the Jadgflieger 109 units flew during the autumn winter of '44. However, I'd fly it and you'd hear nary a complaint from I about K-4s and D-9s.

 

But we don't. We have now two WW2 maps that both the K-4 and the D-9 never saw service over.

 

I'd even rather have a P-51B and a razorback -47 for the Normandy and Channel maps but at least the two variants we do have do not have performance so widely different than that of those that would better suit.

 

The same can not be said for the K-4 and D-9.

 

WELL SAID!!, what i have been trying to say, i am just not as articulate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh?

 

I do wish you 109 fanbois would get you arguments straight, or at least speak with some sort of coherent voice on the G-6.

 

One minute half you argue "G-6 is craplane, don't want" and on the other hand you have a section vociferously arguing that the later G-6 models with MW50 had performance so close to the K-4 that the K-4 makes a good stand in, so good in fact that there's no point in making a G-6!

 

Snappage, it ain't about balance, least not for me. It's not a stat thing or an airquake thing or an ego thing.

 

I just want to fly prototypical aircraft against prototypical opponents on prototypical maps.

 

If we had a low countries/Rhineland map I'd be happier with the K-4, (and the Dora) but even then I'd prefer a G-14 or similar as it better represents what the bulk of what the Jadgflieger 109 units flew during the autumn winter of '44. However, I'd fly it and you'd hear nary a complaint from I about K-4s and D-9s.

 

But we don't. We have now two WW2 maps that both the K-4 and the D-9 never saw service over.

 

I'd even rather have a P-51B and a razorback -47 for the Normandy and Channel maps but at least the two variants we do have do not have performance so widely different than that of those that would better suit.

 

The same can not be said for the K-4 and D-9.

 

 

"you 109 fanbois" very constructive of you to open with an insult.

 

 

"I do wish you 109 fanbois would get you arguments straight" haha, there is no 109 fan club conspiring together, everybody has different opinions even among people who happen to like the same plane! Surprising I know but its just how life works.

 

 

 

"One minute half you argue "G-6 is craplane, don't want" and on the other hand you have a section vociferously arguing that the later G-6 models with MW50 had performance so close to the K-4 that the K-4 makes a good stand in, so good in fact that there's no point in making a G-6". I think your being disingenuous here. You know that when people say they don't want the 109G6 they are talking about a 109G6... not a 109G14(109G6 with MW50). Surely you are aware that there is a huge performance difference between these two variants.

 

 

My position is simple and is solely based on wanting the best multiplayer experience with historical accuracy. We already have a competitive historical line up. To want to switch to a different time period making people not be able to fly the modules they already own(the FW190D9 and 109K4) is not going to be good for player numbers. These modules are not cheap. To make it worse, the plane you want(109G6) was operational when German fighters were severely outclassed by their allied counterparts. This would mean an unbalanced match up and would further hurt player numbers.

 

 

Instead of a 109G6 I would like to see a 109G14 with the option of wing cannons. This would increase the German plane set from three to four for multiplayer missions/scenarios. It is also historically accurate, competitive and people can use the modules they already own! Just need a suitable map.

 

 

An AI 109G6 is fine.


Edited by Snapage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a steaming pile of nonsense.

 

Historical match-up? Maybe, but on no map currently available in DCS or even hinted at being planned.

 

If people want to fly K-4s and D-9s in ahistorical scenarios there are multiplayer servers that cater for them already.

 

But for those that wish to fly historical multiplayer match ups that include a relevant 109 a late model G-6 is the only one that can satisfy both inclusion over Overlord era Normandy and a pre-invasion Channel map.

 

And a G-14 is not a G-6 with MW50. Are they closely related, yes, but are two different aircraft. (Clue: they have different designations...)

 

Oh, and by the way last time I checked "fanboi" is not an insult - it is slightly deprecating appellation admittedly, insinuating that those falling under the appellation are so enamored with the object of their affections that it clouds their objectivity, but in this case, only too apt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And a G-14 is not a G-6 with MW50. Are they closely related, yes, but are two different aircraft. (Clue: they have different designations...)

 

Tell that to Yo-Yo who modelled the K-4 after the G-6..

Specs:

Asus Z97 PRO Gamer, i7 4790K@4.6GHz, 4x8GB Kingston @2400MHz 11-13-14-32, Titan X, Creative X-Fi, 128+2x250GB SSDs, VPC T50 Throttle + G940, MFG Crosswinds, TrackIR 5 w/ pro clip, JetSeat, Win10 Pro 64-bit, Oculus Rift, 27"@1920x1080

 

Settings:

2.1.x - Textures:High Terrain:High Civ.Traffic:Off Water:High VisRan:Low Heatblur:High Shadows:High Res:1920x1080 RoC:1024 MSAA:4x AF:16x HDR:OFF DefS: ON GCI: ON DoF:Off Lens: OFF C/G:390m Trees:1500m R:max Gamma: 1.5

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The early designation for G-14s was G-6/MW50.

 

I don't think 109 fans are any more enamored with their aircraft of choice than your average Spitfire or Mustang fan. All of us are here because we like/are very passionate about these aircraft, theres no need to start throwing names back and forth like little children.

9./JG27

 

"If you can't hit anything, it's because you suck. If you get shot down, it's because you suck. You and me, we know we suck, and that makes it ok." - Worst person in all of DCS

 

"In the end, which will never come, we will all be satisifed... we must fight them on forum, we will fight them on reddit..." - Dunravin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The early designation for G-14s was G-6/MW50.

 

I don't think 109 fans are any more enamored with their aircraft of choice than your average Spitfire or Mustang fan. All of us are here because we like/are very passionate about these aircraft, theres no need to start throwing names back and forth like little children.

 

Bf-109 G6/U3 as well.


Edited by grafspee

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a G-2. And it was not the whole K-4 as such, as it was elevator trim/forces. But thats sort of off topic for here.

 

Also off topic so Ill try not to get too into it, but it starts to show why the topic of "Late" G-6 gets incredibly complicated very quickly...... G-6/U3 has been claimed as anything between Doesnt exist, to G-6 with MW-50 to redesignated G-6/U2.

 

Best info I found suggests that it was some sort of reconnaisance version with MW50. Early MW50 conversions seem to have all been G-6/G-5 U2 aircraft (GM-1). The switch between GM-1 and MW50 was apparently very simple, and was mostly just putting different stuff in the tank.... Therefore supposedly these aircraft retained their U2 designations.

 

Ive been trying to look into this topic a bit the last few days, but as you can see it gets very messy quite quickly. Alot of imprecise and conflicting information out there...

9./JG27

 

"If you can't hit anything, it's because you suck. If you get shot down, it's because you suck. You and me, we know we suck, and that makes it ok." - Worst person in all of DCS

 

"In the end, which will never come, we will all be satisifed... we must fight them on forum, we will fight them on reddit..." - Dunravin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a G-2. And it was not the whole K-4 as such, as it was elevator trim/forces. But thats sort of off topic for here.

 

Also off topic so Ill try not to get too into it, but it starts to show why the topic of "Late" G-6 gets incredibly complicated very quickly...... G-6/U3 has been claimed as anything between Doesnt exist, to G-6 with MW-50 to redesignated G-6/U2.

 

Best info I found suggests that it was some sort of reconnaisance version with MW50. Early MW50 conversions seem to have all been G-6/G-5 U2 aircraft (GM-1). The switch between GM-1 and MW50 was apparently very simple, and was mostly just putting different stuff in the tank.... Therefore supposedly these aircraft retained their U2 designations.

 

Ive been trying to look into this topic a bit the last few days, but as you can see it gets very messy quite quickly. Alot of imprecise and conflicting information out there...

 

U stands for Reconnaissance fighter iirc.

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No U is for Umbau/Umrüstbausatz. Has nothing to do with reconnaissance necessarily.

9./JG27

 

"If you can't hit anything, it's because you suck. If you get shot down, it's because you suck. You and me, we know we suck, and that makes it ok." - Worst person in all of DCS

 

"In the end, which will never come, we will all be satisifed... we must fight them on forum, we will fight them on reddit..." - Dunravin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell that to Yo-Yo who modelled the K-4 after the G-6..

 

Blimey, still grinding that axe? Surprised if you weren't just grinding handle by now.

 

Besides you're argument is irrelevant. A Mk.XIV Spit has the same wing as a Mk.VIII. Doesn't make it a Mk.VIII though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With out trying to add too much fuel to the fire already, how is it a semi- historical match-up already? would you be saying this if a 109g-6 was pitted against a 150 octane mustang instead of a B/C model that it historically went up against? how about the spitfire that is a 1943 plane? the match right now is not historical and that was my initial complaint. its as simple as the two maps we have now did not have the k-4 or the d-9 during the map times operations. Don't get me wrong this is still the best war-bird modeled game out in my opinion ( il-2 has fallen off). and the aircraft right now are modeled very well (IMHO). all i am saying is I hope they take a look at this in the future and try to have closer historical match ups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spitfire LF.IXs operating at 18lb boost (as in DCS) would have faced Bf 109K-4s and Fw 190D-9s during the late autumn and early winter of 1944 over Belgium Holland, Luxembourg and the Western border regions of Germany into the first months of 1945.

 

P-51Ds of the 9th Air Force, operating from bases on the continent at 67" would have faced Bf 109K-4s and Fw 190D-9s during the late autumn and early winter of 1944 until VE day, over Belgium Holland, Luxembourg and Germany.

 

P-51Ds of the 8th Air Force, operating from bases in East Anglia, England at 72" would have faced Bf 109K-4s and Fw 190D-9s during the late autumn and early winter of 1944 until VE day, over primarily Germany but also to a more limited extent over Belgium Holland, Luxembourg, reflecting the different focus of their area of operations. (8th: strategic bomber offensive, 9th: tactical air support)

 

 

The Channel Map & Normandy, pre-invasion, 1944:

 

BF 109G-6s & Fw 190A-6, A-7 and A-8s faced Spitfire LF.IXs operating at 18lb boost (as in DCS), P-51Bs of the 9th Air Force, operating from bases in Kent, England at 67" and P-51Bs of the 8th Air Force, operating from bases in East Anglia, England at 72".

 

 

The Channel Map & Normandy, invasion & after:

 

BF 109G-6s (& G-14s from July onwards) and Fw 190A-6, A-7 & A-8s faced Spitfire LF.IXs operating at 18lb boost (as in DCS), P-51Bs & Ds of the 9th Air Force, operating initially from bases in Kent, England but later from fields in Normandy at 67" and P-51B & Ds of the 8th Air Force, operating from bases in East Anglia, England at 72".

 

For P-47s Razorbacks would have been the representative prior to D-Day with bubbletops appearing just prior to and increasing in numbers thereafter, with an identical MAP rating differential between the 9th and 8th Air Force reflecting the exclusive use of 150 octane by the Eighth.


Edited by DD_Fenrir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Huh?

 

I do wish you 109 fanbois would get you arguments straight, or at least speak with some sort of coherent voice on the G-6.

 

One minute half you argue "G-6 is craplane, don't want" and on the other hand you have a section vociferously arguing that the later G-6 models with MW50 had performance so close to the K-4 that the K-4 makes a good stand in, so good in fact that there's no point in making a G-6!

 

Snappage, it ain't about balance, least not for me. It's not a stat thing or an airquake thing or an ego thing.

 

I just want to fly prototypical aircraft against prototypical opponents on prototypical maps.

 

If we had a low countries/Rhineland map I'd be happier with the K-4, (and the Dora) but even then I'd prefer a G-14 or similar as it better represents what the bulk of what the Jadgflieger 109 units flew during the autumn winter of '44. However, I'd fly it and you'd hear nary a complaint from I about K-4s and D-9s.

 

But we don't. We have now two WW2 maps that both the K-4 and the D-9 never saw service over.

 

I'd even rather have a P-51B and a razorback -47 for the Normandy and Channel maps but at least the two variants we do have do not have performance so widely different than that of those that would better suit.

 

The same can not be said for the K-4 and D-9.

 

"What a steaming pile of nonsense." Not one for having a respectful discussion I see. It's comments like this that degrade the quality of these forums.

 

You say "fanboi" is not an insult and then in the same paragraph you go on to explain why it is. It's a derogatory term or insult, your not saying it to add to the conversation you are saying it to undermine people who have a different opinion to you.

 

You are obsessed with the 109G6 because of the Normandy map which is a mid 1944 map. The 109G14 was being produced from early 1944 so its not a stretch that the G14 could fit the Normandy map. Not that many(if any) Normandy scenarios which include extensive German air resistance are accurate anyway. The German air force was effectively non existent over Normandy. The vast majority of the German air force was fighting bombers over Germany or on the eastern front. A WW2 map of West Germany would be much more realistic. That's where western allied fighters were encountering the German air force in significant numbers.

 

"If people want to fly K-4s and D-9s in ahistorical scenarios there are multiplayer servers that cater for them already." I would like historical scenarios for the K4 and Dora. As I said a 1945 map would be much better. So we can have realistic historical scenarios with the modules many people already own. And a larger variety of aircraft.

 

"And a G-14 is not a G-6 with MW50. Are they closely related, yes, but are two different aircraft.". Well I don't know what you were on about in regards to late war 109G6 performing the same as K4. I never said that. Though I do believe the G14 is actually the same plane but with MW50. Not even all 109G6s were the same, it depended on which factory the plane was built from and when.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With out trying to add too much fuel to the fire already, how is it a semi- historical match-up already? would you be saying this if a 109g-6 was pitted against a 150 octane mustang instead of a B/C model that it historically went up against? how about the spitfire that is a 1943 plane? the match right now is not historical and that was my initial complaint. its as simple as the two maps we have now did not have the k-4 or the d-9 during the map times operations. Don't get me wrong this is still the best war-bird modeled game out in my opinion ( il-2 has fallen off). and the aircraft right now are modeled very well (IMHO). all i am saying is I hope they take a look at this in the future and try to have closer historical match ups.

 

 

He is saying its semi- historical because we don't have a suitable map for the historical plane set we have. The Normandy map is a little early for the FW190D9 and 109K4. An early 1945 map would fit the aircraft we have well. All the WW2 planes we have were operational at the same time except maybe for the FW190A8 but you can pretend its a FW190F8. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What a steaming pile of nonsense." Not one for having a respectful discussion I see. It's comments like this that degrade the quality of these forums.

 

No it's people who completely ignore reasoned, logical arguments & historical facts and use their own wishes/desires/overly romantic views of history combined with cherry picked or inaccurate data to base their demands upon.

 

What you describe is a symptom, what I describe is the underlying ailment.

 

 

You say "fanboi" is not an insult and then in the same paragraph you go on to explain why it is. It's a derogatory term or insult, your not saying it to add to the conversation you are saying it to undermine people who have a different opinion to you.

 

And you are being overly sensitive. I explained to you what I meant by my terminology, and whilst it is perhaps not the kindest, I find it a wholly accurate assessment of those with a less than objective view of their "faveplane".

 

 

You are obsessed with the 109G6...

 

No, I'm obsessed with historical accuracy.

 

 

...because of the Normandy map which is a mid 1944 map.

 

No because of the Channel and Normandy maps. Which combined allow approximate representations of operations, within limits of the current available plane set from April 1944 to September 1944.

 

 

The 109G14 was being produced from early 1944...

 

Produced. Now go check the dates of first entry into service.

 

...so its not a stretch that the G14 could fit the Normandy map.

 

I don't disagree. But if you believe that Goering or Galland snapped their fingers and overnight the entirety of 109 equipped Gruppen switched to the G-14 then you need a reality check. Even in July, the most numerous - and ergo representative - 109 types at the front would have been G-6. Christ, even the famous and celebrated JG26, whose entire III. Gruppe were equipped with 109s as of September of 1944 had only G-6 models according to the JG26 War Diary!

 

 

Not that many(if any) Normandy scenarios which include extensive German air resistance are accurate anyway. The German air force was effectively non existent over Normandy. The vast majority of the German air force was fighting bombers over Germany or on the eastern front.

 

Wow. Have you done even a shred of research? Do you even realise that within days of the invasion most of the Reichs defense units had relocated to bases in Eastern France? How many units were in the Reichs defense compared to those in other fronts?

 

When you say stuff like this it makes we wonder why I'm bothering to argue with you since you are so clearly making it up - you're not basing your argument on any logical, verifiable conclusion from any definable data.

 

 

A WW2 map of West Germany would be much more realistic.

 

For the current plane set, I wholeheartedly agree. For once.

 

 

That's where western allied fighters were encountering the German air force in significant numbers.

 

Again, that's supposition on your part, and in comparison to a statement I wholly refute.

 

9th AF and 2nd TAF records show a trend towards a lull in enemy air contacts around late August early September, but to say that Luftwaffe air activity was greater over the West German Frontier during the autumn winter of '44, I'd need to see some hard data to prove it.

 

 

I would like historical scenarios for the K4 and Dora. As I said a 1945 map would be much better. So we can have realistic historical scenarios with the modules many people already own. And a larger variety of aircraft.

 

Agreed.

 

Well I don't know what you were on about in regards to late war 109G6 performing the same as K4. I never said that.

 

No you did not. But certain other members of the 109 fan club who frequent these parts seem to like to think so.

 

 

Though I do believe the G14 is actually the same plane but with MW50. Not even all 109G6s were the same, it depended on which factory the plane was built from and when.

 

You know, I'll perhaps be flexible on this; I know a fair bit about the 109 but am prepared, given the complexity and abundance of the various sub-variants within the G series and that it's not my most researched type, to say that maybe I'm missing some data that proves as much.

 

However, you have very much shot yourself in the foot; if you're saying a G-6 late with MW50 (which is the G-6 I am suggesting would be a much better fit for Normandy and Channel maps) is essentially a G-14, why do you argue so vociferously against it?

It fits both the current maps perfectly, and you think they are practically identical. Ergo, all your own arguments as to the G-6 being overmatched are rendered void - by your own mouth.

 

Why such resistance to the G-6 then?

 

I can only think that the sheer nomenclature "G-6" has some sort of leprotic stigma with the 109 acolytes round these parts and that re-badging it as "G-14" makes all that scary stink of disease go away!


Edited by DD_Fenrir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The vast majority of the German air force was fighting bombers over Germany or on the eastern front. A WW2 map of West Germany would be much more realistic. That's where western allied fighters were encountering the German air force in significant numbers.

 

The very thought of having the planes and maps to recreate the air war in the year leading up to d-day makes me a little bit misty eyed. Everything was still very much up for grabs during this era. 6 or 8 hour missions would be a bit much, but that could be worked around. I wish there were more interest in this period in which the outcome was much more uncertain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I mentioned on the other page I've actually been trying to find out details about the transition between G-6 and G-14, what types were flown around Normandy or at least during that time of the invasion... Since the conversation seems to be going here anyway, and in an effort to stop it becoming a spit fan vs 109 fan thing I'll try to summarise what Ive found. Im not a historian or an expert by any means but most of this is cobbled together from original documents various books, or posts on other forums by people who write such books. If anybody knows more Id be happy to hear it.

 

So to start with the G-14 only entered production in July/August 1944. It only really starts showing up in the Flugzeugbestandsmeldungen (unit inventory reports) around the end of July, beginning of August, but to be honest in many cases units started getting them in September, october, sometimes even as late as November.

 

So what was being flown before then? Well on the reports mostly list G-6s. Unfortunately the lists don't always tell the whole story, as the aircraft are often listed under the designation they were originally built with. As many 109s, especially at this stage of the war were rebuilt/refitted from earlier aircraft this can become confusing. Some authors have gone through loss reports, and Unit histories at the time and discovered some aircraft listed as G-6, were actually G-6/AS or other variants.

 

This is essentially where things begin to get confusing. Most G-6/AS were built as conversions from "normal" G-6s (325/326 aircraft). These started to be produced in the first few months of 44, but exactly which units had them and when is difficult to find out, at least for someone like me who is searching for things on the internet.

 

Additionally there are aircraft built as G-6/U2.... From what Ive found these were build between Oct/Nov 43 and August 44. From what Ive found it seems to be that there were between 250-500 of these aircraft in total. To start with these were aircraft fitted with GM-1 boost, but as of April/May 1944 200(250?) conversion kits were ordered to convert these airplanes to MW50 instead. All new production G-6/U2 were supposedly built with MW50 after this period as well. Many of these are listed in Priens book as G-6/U2/AS as well.

 

The big question I still have leftover after all this digging now is: If there were potentially 500 G-6/U2 floating around.... Where were they? I have hardly found any delivered to units, especially not in any number. It makes sense to me that they would be sent to the western front. MW boosted and AS aircraft were really mostly used in the west where they were needed more, rather than sending them to the east where they could make do with older "standard" G-6s. Maybe they are listed as G-6s like the AS machines I mentioned earlier, in which case I don't know how to track them down. The most I found was 1 unit based in france for a few weeks which had 30 or so + maybe 1 or 2 G-5/U2 (pressurised cockpit version, which may have retained GM-1 instead of converting to MW50) and a unit in Germany which had 50 of them in July/August 44.

 

So what does this mean for DCS and Normandy: Well IMO in a perfect world we would get a G-6, a G-6/AS, and an option for a U2 version of both of these. The standard ones are probably what was most numerous in Normandy, yet the U2s were also present in some number (At least 30 G-6/U2 based in Evreux/St.Andre at the beginning of July 44). The U2 variants are also a very good stand in for G-14s if we should get a map where those would be appropriate later on. Obviously we don't live in a perfect world, and Im sure ED has already decided on what variant/s they are making.

 

As for historical accuracy, I think some of us would do well to remember that there are 1 million things that dcs will never simulate, and at best we are trying to get a game which simulates aircraft very well, and is close enough to something so that we can pretend that what we are doing is kind of like what really happened. Like others have said already the luftwaffe was already quite battered by the air fighting over germany in early 44. By the time D-Day rolled around I think there was something like 2 JG.s based anywhere in france, and though more showed up shortly after the invasion, they only stayed for a few weeks. Looking at losses for July/August its not uncommon to see Groups listing their entire complement of aircraft destroyed through enemy action for several months in a row during this period. After that it was Reichsverteidigung in whatever way you can with whatever you have left, and the buildup of fighters in the west again in prep for Bodenplatte.

 

Edit: Made an error with 100 tabs open. The G-6/U2s were based in Beauvis, not Evreux. Its possible the Unit only recieved them on return to Germany on the 30.6 as well.


Edited by DefaultFace

9./JG27

 

"If you can't hit anything, it's because you suck. If you get shot down, it's because you suck. You and me, we know we suck, and that makes it ok." - Worst person in all of DCS

 

"In the end, which will never come, we will all be satisifed... we must fight them on forum, we will fight them on reddit..." - Dunravin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, you have very much shot yourself in the foot; if you're saying a G-6 late with MW50 (which is the G-6 I am suggesting would be a much better fit for Normandy and Channel maps) is essentially a G-14, why do you argue so vociferously against it?

It fits both the current maps perfectly, and you think they are practically identical. Ergo, all your own arguments as to the G-6 being overmatched are rendered void - by your own mouth.

 

Abrasive language aside, when I say 109G6 I am not talking about late variants with MW50. I did not know you were. A late 109G6 with MW50 could be a good complement to the planes we already have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make the Ju 88 flyable

I9-9900K@ 5.2 GHZ CPU Watercooled, 32GB G Skill TridentZ@4133Mhz, Gigabyte Aorus Ultra Z390, NVidia Titan Xp w/Arctic Air Cooler, 3 x 1Tb Samsung NVMe 970 Pro, 34" Acer Predator 4K, GVL 224 109 "Skud" Throttle, BAUR BRD-DS with KG-13A control column, MFG Crosswind Rudders, Saitek Cessna Trim Wheel, CH Throttle Quad, SB AE-9 + Audeze LCD-GX headset, TrackIR5, Buttkicker Simkit + Buttkicker Gamer2, Saitek PZ255 Flight panel, 2 x DSD Flight Panel 2s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make the Ju 88 flyable

 

Just wondering why this comment ended up in a P-51 "just wondering" thread. Maybe it's the passion rearing its ugly head again?

The DCS Mi-8MTV2. The best aviational BBW experience you could ever dream of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I mentioned on the other page I've actually been trying to find out details about the transition between G-6 and G-14, what types were flown around Normandy or at least during that time of the invasion... Since the conversation seems to be going here anyway, and in an effort to stop it becoming a spit fan vs 109 fan thing I'll try to summarise what Ive found. Im not a historian or an expert by any means but most of this is cobbled together from original documents various books, or posts on other forums by people who write such books. If anybody knows more Id be happy to hear it.

 

So to start with the G-14 only entered production in July/August 1944. It only really starts showing up in the Flugzeugbestandsmeldungen (unit inventory reports) around the end of July, beginning of August, but to be honest in many cases units started getting them in September, october, sometimes even as late as November.

 

So what was being flown before then? Well on the reports mostly list G-6s. Unfortunately the lists don't always tell the whole story, as the aircraft are often listed under the designation they were originally built with. As many 109s, especially at this stage of the war were rebuilt/refitted from earlier aircraft this can become confusing. Some authors have gone through loss reports, and Unit histories at the time and discovered some aircraft listed as G-6, were actually G-6/AS or other variants.

 

This is essentially where things begin to get confusing. Most G-6/AS were built as conversions from "normal" G-6s (325/326 aircraft). These started to be produced in the first few months of 44, but exactly which units had them and when is difficult to find out, at least for someone like me who is searching for things on the internet.

 

Additionally there are aircraft built as G-6/U2.... From what Ive found these were build between Oct/Nov 43 and August 44. From what Ive found it seems to be that there were between 250-500 of these aircraft in total. To start with these were aircraft fitted with GM-1 boost, but as of April/May 1944 200(250?) conversion kits were ordered to convert these airplanes to MW50 instead. All new production G-6/U2 were supposedly built with MW50 after this period as well. Many of these are listed in Priens book as G-6/U2/AS as well.

 

The big question I still have leftover after all this digging now is: If there were potentially 500 G-6/U2 floating around.... Where were they? I have hardly found any delivered to units, especially not in any number. It makes sense to me that they would be sent to the western front. MW boosted and AS aircraft were really mostly used in the west where they were needed more, rather than sending them to the east where they could make do with older "standard" G-6s. Maybe they are listed as G-6s like the AS machines I mentioned earlier, in which case I don't know how to track them down. The most I found was 1 unit based in france for a few weeks which had 30 or so + maybe 1 or 2 G-5/U2 (pressurised cockpit version, which may have retained GM-1 instead of converting to MW50) and a unit in Germany which had 50 of them in July/August 44.

 

So what does this mean for DCS and Normandy: Well IMO in a perfect world we would get a G-6, a G-6/AS, and an option for a U2 version of both of these. The standard ones are probably what was most numerous in Normandy, yet the U2s were also present in some number (At least 30 G-6/U2 based in Evreux/St.Andre at the beginning of July 44). The U2 variants are also a very good stand in for G-14s if we should get a map where those would be appropriate later on. Obviously we don't live in a perfect world, and Im sure ED has already decided on what variant/s they are making.

 

As for historical accuracy, I think some of us would do well to remember that there are 1 million things that dcs will never simulate, and at best we are trying to get a game which simulates aircraft very well, and is close enough to something so that we can pretend that what we are doing is kind of like what really happened. Like others have said already the luftwaffe was already quite battered by the air fighting over germany in early 44. By the time D-Day rolled around I think there was something like 2 JG.s based anywhere in france, and though more showed up shortly after the invasion, they only stayed for a few weeks. Looking at losses for July/August its not uncommon to see Groups listing their entire complement of aircraft destroyed through enemy action for several months in a row during this period. After that it was Reichsverteidigung in whatever way you can with whatever you have left, and the buildup of fighters in the west again in prep for Bodenplatte.

 

Edit: Made an error with 100 tabs open. The G-6/U2s were based in Beauvis, not Evreux. Its possible the Unit only recieved them on return to Germany on the 30.6 as well.

 

Interesting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...