FW-190 Anton or Dora?

Guys, i´d really appreciate some recommendations for choosing the Anton or Dora.

Have in mind that I´d prefer the Air-to-Ground fighting, the dogfighting on second hand. Reading different publications dealing the FW-190 models didn´t help me a lot so far...

As said, any tipp or contribution will be much appreciated.

Regards,

Stefan

Anton, the Dora is too light to AAA fire...

Inviato dal mio BLA-L09 utilizzando Tapatalk

definitely the Anton. Sturdy, heaviest hitter in DCS imo (4x20mm vs one 30mm in the Kurfürst). Also it's got that iconic 190 look, very important.

You will not like it, but the P-51D is the best WW2 ground pounder atm. And it has a wonderful ground pounder DLC campaign by Bunyap and Wags.

That being said, I would prefer the Anton for A/G over the Dora. Don't know about the state of E/A and available weapons, though.

anything air to air dora, anton for the rest

Guys, thanks for your thoughts. I´m a little unsure due to the early access status of the Anton. @tintifaxl: the Mustang is surely the best warbird from the late war period. But man - i´m a German so flying a German bird is a must have... :-) Flying non-german birds is what I´m doing in the Jetage...

The Anton not only has tremendous fire power, it's also easier the steer on a straight course towards your target. I get far more hits than with the Dora, and the hits are devastating.

Unfortunately many of us have a problem with the Anton since the last update: various CB's popping out for no good reason. I hope this will be fixed in the next update.

Have in mind that I´d prefer the Air-to-Ground fighting, the dogfighting on second hand. Reading different publications dealing the FW-190 models didn´t help me a lot so far...

Depends what you mean by "air-to-ground" fighting.

The DCS A-8 (Anton) has better armour and cannons for strafing runs, but carries only a single SC250 bomb.

The DCS D-9 (Dora) is more fragile, but it is faster. Its bomb loadouts are much better, having the option of an SC250, 4 x SC50 or SC500 bomb. It can also carry R4M rocket racks. Alternatively, it can mount 2 x BR21 rocket launchers.

So, if you are just trying to take out trucks and other soft targets, or perhaps even just strafing infantry (i.e. actual ground pounders!), then the Anton is probably your best bet. If you are trying to deal with hard targets (tanks, bunkers, ships, etc.) then the Dora might be better because of the better bombs/rockets.

Personally, in DCS I fly the D-9 with 4xSC50 + 2xBR21 for ground attack missions.

Depends what you mean by "air-to-ground" fighting.

 

 

 

The DCS A-8 (Anton) has better armour and cannons for strafing runs, but carries only a single SC250 bomb.

 

 

 

The DCS D-9 (Dora) is more fragile, but it is faster. Its bomb loadouts are much better, having the option of an SC250, 4 x SC50 or SC500 bomb. It can also carry R4M rocket racks. Alternatively, it can mount 2 x BR21 rocket launchers.

 

 

 

So, if you are just trying to take out trucks and other soft targets, or perhaps even just strafing infantry (i.e. actual ground pounders!), then the Anton is probably your best bet. If you are trying to deal with hard targets (tanks, bunkers, ships, etc.) then the Dora might be better because of the better bombs/rockets.

 

 

 

Personally, in DCS I fly the D-9 with 4xSC50 + 2xBR21 for ground attack missions.

Inviato dal mio BLA-L09 utilizzando Tapatalk

Well the F variant is what I'm going to fly, if we ever get one. In the meantime though, it'll be a tie between the Mustang and the Dora, since both are actually excellent ground attack platforms as well. Or if I'm feeling somewhat more modernish, the ZA Albie actually scratches the light GA/CAS itch very well too :)

 

So, if you are just trying to take out trucks and other soft targets, or perhaps even just strafing infantry (i.e. actual ground pounders!), then the Anton is probably your best bet. If you are trying to deal with hard targets (tanks, bunkers, ships, etc.) then the Dora might be better because of the better bombs/rockets.

Well, i aim to fight back the Allied Forces spreading over Normandy... :-) Let it be Shermans, Crusaders, Halftracks and so on... Also i´ll try to fight the allied air superiority. ;-)

To be honest, I´m really torn between the two planes. Dora has more weaponry by now, seems more matured. The Anton fits more to the time of D-Day, should be more "modern" due to the age of the Dora. But i fear it´s written in the stars when it will leave its´s EA-status, right?

Man, this choice is a real pain in the a**...

... If you are trying to deal with hard targets (tanks, bunkers, ships, etc.) then the Dora might be better because of the better bombs/rockets.

I have done several bomb missions with the Anton against ships (Elnya tankers). The 250 kg bomb doesn't always destroy the ship with the first hit, but neither does the 500 kg bomb. With the Anton I could do more precise dive bombing, and what's equally important, the risk of dropping a wing when I pull out of the dive is almost nil. With the Dora I have often ended up in the water because I pulled up a bit late and lost control.

Personally I find that anything smaller than a ship is a very difficult target to hit with a dumb bomb, especially since the FW-190's have no bomb target sight. The only real weakness of the Anton in my opinion is its limited speed. When I use it, even in the ground attack role, I always fly at full throttle (except in a bombing dive). That's the only way to have a chance to escape the attack of a fighter.

At the moment only one bomb, when full developed the A-8 and much more the promised F variant will be able to carry much more loadouts of the Dora, so it could be seen as an investment.

Unfortunately, there has been no announcement of additional armament being added to the DCS A-8. The product page states: "The Anton could also be loaded with unguided rockets and bombs." But that is just the description of the historical aircraft, and not what is included (or planned) for the module.

There has been no statement of a "promised F-variant"... the only thing on that has been some discussion of the type by one of the developers, Coyote, (REF: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3759886&postcount=292), and a vague hint in some historical text in one of the newsletters (REF: 25-Jan-2019).

And, even if the F-variant is produced, there has been no indication from ED if it will be included for free with the A-8, or will be a module purchased completely separately.

It would be great if we got either an increased-capacity A-8 or an F-8 but, at the moment, both options are a bit uncertain.

I have done several bomb missions with the Anton against ships (Elnya tankers). The 250 kg bomb doesn't always destroy the ship with the first hit, but neither does the 500 kg bomb. With the Anton I could do more precise dive bombing, and what's equally important, the risk of dropping a wing when I pull out of the dive is almost nil. With the Dora I have often ended up in the water because I pulled up a bit late and lost control.

We looked into the issue of ships a while back (REF = http://stormofwar.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=6957#p53815), and tried to find instances from history of ships being sunk by the FW 190. The most prominent case seems to be the attacks on Bône Harbour, North Afrika, on 1- and 2-Jan-1943. In the cases of these larger ships, multiple bomb hits were required. This is consistent with the behaviour in DCS.

The thing is that an attack on a harbour was carried out by a squadron (or in the case of Bône, two squadrons 2./SG3 & 3./SG10), rather than a lone aircraft.

We looked into the issue of ships a while back (REF = http://stormofwar.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=6957#p53815), and tried to find instances from history of ships being sunk by the FW 190. The most prominent case seems to be the attacks on Bône Harbour, North Afrika, on 1- and 2-Jan-1943. In the cases of these larger ships, multiple bomb hits were required. This is consistent with the behaviour in DCS.

 

The thing is that an attack on a harbour was carried out by a squadron (or in the case of Bône, two squadrons 2./SG3 & 3./SG10), rather than a lone aircraft.

1. I agree, although Rudel sank the Soviet cruiser Marat with a single bomb fom his JU-87.

2. Large ships in reality were heavily defended, and a single bomber would have attracted the concentric fire of all AA batteries. Plus, even a big ship is not easy to hit with a dumb bomb. My father was on the Panzerschiff Deutschland in 1939/40 and he related how in one RAF attack on their ship many bombs dropped near the ship and she would just bounce a little. And the only bomb that hit in that attack didn't explode.

Stuka would likely carry the PC1000 armour piercing bomb for antishipping with the gunner seat left empty to carry the weight. One hit would probably sink a pre-dreadnaught battleship like the Marat, it's like a 1903 design with triple expansion steam engines and no concept of aerial threats. A Ju88 is more suited to the role however, some carried a pair of PC1000 under the wing roots for the purpose as a part of numerous Luftwaffe special tactical development projects, the Lehrgeschwader and such, IIRC it had MG151/20 under the nose for shipboard FlaK suppression. They also played with He111 torpedo bombers.

FW190G could and most likely would carry a PC500 with a pair of drop tanks under the wings to attack ships, which is the lightest armour piercer and it would readily be misidentified as a 190A or F, however generally variants other than the G carried a 250kg bomb and not a 500kg one when you start to check historical record over design features, either an SC250 HE or thick walled SD250. It might also be noteworthy the 190G was the first to get an engine boost system for use at low altitude in the first blower gear, which is the sort of thing you do to help heavy loads off short runways. By the time Schlachtgeschwader were formed the F might also carry an AB250 submunitions dispenser with 4 SC50 under the wings for attacking troop concentrations or airfields, but SD50 are available which would help mess up a transport ship. An SD250 would be very nasty for anything shy of a cruiser. SD have an adjustable fuse IIRC.

Stuka would definitely carry a PC500 or PC1000 if an antishipping sortie so perhaps any FW190 variant tasked with antishipping would carry a PC500, eg. the A and F of the SG units. Overland jabo however I can't think of any but a G that carries a 500kg by example.

The BF109G14, G10 and K4 were also designed to carry a 500kg bomb yet in practise also carried only a 250kg by example. The tailwheel lengthening compared to earlier variants was actually to provide ground clearance for a 500kg bomb rather than pilot view in taxi. Perhaps due to the majority of forward airfields being rough grass and the majority of late war airfields being very hasty setups with even quicker retreat plans, perhaps it is that rough field runways were simply too bouncy to risk the tight ground clearance of a 500kg bomb over a 250kg bomb. Or maybe it was a supply thing and the 250kg was simply more widely dispersed.

As far as hauling capacity is concerned the FW190A had no trouble carrying well in excess of 1000kg loads ferrying heavy bombs to KG airfields in 44. It could not deploy these weapons, but armourers affixed SC1000, 1400 and other heavy bombs for transport by the fighter and then at the bomber airfield other armourers would have to remove it again, it couldn't be jettisoned or armed from the cockpit, purely a ferry mission.

It also carried torpedos which it could deploy, in some development prototypes that were 750kg and heavier, but this version had the guns and any other non-essential equipment removed.

The aforementioned FW190G did routinely carry a 500kg bomb with two drop tanks, or two 250kg bombs under the wings with a drop tank, but had all but the wing root 2cm guns removed and IIRC magazines reduced.

The F series had the outer wing 2cm guns removed, probably to allow internal reinforcement for double ETC50 racks there. As mentioned a typical loadout would be a 250kg bomb and four 50kg bombs. A G would carry a 500kg bomb if a single bomb was being carried to allow for two drop tanks. Otherwise with a single drop tank it would carry two 250kg bombs. The SC250 and SD250 is definitely the mainstay of the jabo. Even Me210 was specifically designed to carry two SC250 internally as the heavy fighter mission shifted from strafing attack to fighter-bomber.

I would definitely like to see SC, SD and AB variants in the 250kg class for all the German fighter DCS WW2 modules (FW190A8, D9 and BF109K4), to give the variety required for different mission tasking. Because they can carry a 500kg whether or not they actually did in service (apparently not), it'd also be nice to have the PC500 and PC500R delayed fuse armour piercers simply because the type doesn't come in 250kg.

Experimenting with rockets was very big for the FW190A, the 3 main ones being WGr21, R4M and Panzerschreck/Panzerblitz in triple racks. It was always experimental but included combat sorties so equipped, but numbers in the handful except for WGr21 which was commonly fitted to later Antons such as those intercepting bombers over the Netherlands. The Dora also used R4M on sorties IIRC, so it's good that option exists in the DCS loadout, but it was the Anton which is the most notable German fighter used in rocket experimental combat trials and the most widely equipped with WGr21 aside from the Me110G4. As for interesting rockets, the first wire-guided air-intercept missiles were carried by the Dora, love to see that as a loadout. IIRC there were three airframes setup in trials, stretching my memory here and can't remember if they ever shot anything down.

Other people were doing similar things but were more conservatively still concentrating on aerial guns development. Germans already mooted the revolver cannon design the Aden and DEFA were direct copies of, in both 2cm and 3cm versions so was done in that department and just waiting for them to enter production when the war ended. But the Russians were still developing aerial guns like their excellent B20 rechambering of the Beresin HMG and heavy caliber Nudelmans. Postwar Yaks and Lavochkins would carry triple 20mm cannon for less or equal weight than their wartime ShVAK armament with one or two 20mm.

In terms of handling qualities the Anton and Dora are the same aircraft: in construction terms the Dora is an A6 with an inline engine, the A8 is basically a refined A6. The only difference between A8 and D9 is the engine and individually customised equipment options. Some radial engine fighters have excellent reputations as fighter-bombers due to inherent sturdiness, however the reality is the BMW801 always ran very hot in a close fitted cowling and series development only helped the worst of it, such as the second bank overheating prematurely, it was never completely solved. The second issue in the lightweight fighter was vibration, which was shocking in early series and limited engine performance but was helped greatly with the fuselage lengthening of the A5, itself simply to allow future fitment of MG131 or MG151 in the upper cowling. Again it was never completely solved. Put simply due to those two factors it's not really a fighter you want to have any engine compartment damage in, it'd be like upsetting a balance beam. By comparison the Dora has a well protected engine system with an armoured oil cooler and annular radiator so between the give here and take there I think the two even out in groundfire survivability in real world terms.

The third issue of the radial was indirectly the reason behind the Dora. The BMW801 just never liked altitude much. You could say the 801 was engineered for an operational height around the 6000m mark, with an emphasis on take off, acceleration and load bearing performance. A good engine for a medium bomber. It was adapted to the FW190, the airframe was originally designed around another R14 engine that fell out of production, the 801 was the only available alternative. But it makes sense since high performance bombers and fighters often share engines. Just that time frame means popular convention was medium overland ranges ahead of a fast moving front and 5000m combat height, early war thinking. The Spitfire MkI to III wasn't so hot above 6000m itself, the BF109E was an exception of the day being excellent at 7000m, so the whole altitude thing with the BMW801 makes the Anton a late war fighter with the altitude qualities of an early war fighter. Still okay among contemporaries, most Soviet fighters were no good at altitude either, the Anton was no worse than a Yak9D or an La5F in altitude performance, but paled against the MkIX Spit, P38, P39, P47, P51, etc. Still, once they got an engine boost system the only thing that could catch an FW190A (in this case actually, the G) at 1000 metres was a Hawker Typhoon or Tempest. Catching FW190A at low altitude was actually the specific reason for the Typhoon re-entering production, after initial production airframe failures and the RAF actually ordering a decent number of them. It was already shelved and pending cancellation before the second wind.

Okay so Kurt Tank at Focke Wulf had a pet project for a new high altitude fighter and when RLM got interested they wanted him to modify the design elements to use existing FW190 production tooling, which became the Ta152 series. The idea was this and the new jet Me262 would replace all existing fighter types in service, but as production and in particular the complicated new engines would still be some time away RLM wanted a much simplified version to enter service in the interim: the Dora.

So technically the Dora is a simplified version of the Anton and BF109 replacement, whilst at the same time it is also an Anton with an engine change. Many A8 wound up with Dora fins and several Dora wound up with Ta152 fins, all F8 got the blown canopy, standardized in later Dora production and many A8 had them. Various Dora variants have motorkanone and outer wing guns, some have a cut down version of the Ta152 engine with 1800hp at 8000 metres and over 2000 at take off. The entire long nose FW190 family might curtly be described as combining the best parts of the FW190A and BF109G/K without losing anything to either.

For historical simmers there is one big glaring difference that affected aircraft selection: C3 fuel often had limited, local availability. B4 was everywhere. Later production Doras used B4, as per all later Messers and pending Ta152 of all types.

Nice post Vanir! :thumbup:

In the States we have a saying....”Get both!”

Get the Anton for now (ground attack needs survivability), but have a plan to get the Dora soon afterwards (next sale).

Many here complain about Early Access, but imho the complaints are overemphasized. The planes can fly, they can do most of what you want them too, and generally the things they can’t do are relatively minor (i.e., they won’t cause the plane to suddenly spiral out of control or drop bombs up, etc)

@Vanir, thanx for your contribution. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with my original question concenring the two modules here in DCS. So it doesn´t help me on the decision which module to purchase. ;-)

Many here complain about Early Access, but imho the complaints are overemphasized. The planes can fly, they can do most of what you want them too, and generally the things they can’t do are relatively minor (i.e., they won’t cause the plane to suddenly spiral out of control or drop bombs up, etc)

Fair enough. However, the original poster was specifically asking about whether to get the Anton or Dora for ground attack. Although it might be fixed at some point, not having functioning bomb drops may be an issue for him. Ref: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=245590

Fair enough. However, the original poster was specifically asking about whether to get the Anton or Dora for ground attack. Although it might be fixed at some point, not having functioning bomb drops may be an issue for him. Ref: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=245590

You got it on the point, man! :-)

Well I fly both just because they are just such a joy to fly and look at! The FW-190 is a truly brilliant design and certainly one of the designs that made warbirds one of the pinnacles of aviation history. The Dora is primarily meant to intercept high flying bombers and fend of their escort, so if you like to fly high, it might be your pick. As already mentioned in many posts, the A8 is mainly for ground attack.

Another thing that you should consider is the difference in engines. The Anton is the only plane with a radial engine currently in DCS. And to be honest a radial engine is a must have experience. The Junkers Jumo 213 V12 is of course also a superb engine with more power, but you might have excellent V12's already if you own any of the other WWII birds.

Well I fly both just because they are just such a joy to fly and look at! The FW-190 is a truly brilliant design and certainly one of the designs that made warbirds one of the pinnacles of aviation history. The Dora is primarily meant to intercept high flying bombers and fend of their escort, so if you like to fly high, it might be your pick. As already mentioned in many posts, the A8 is mainly for ground attack.

 

Another thing that you should consider is the difference in engines. The Anton is the only plane with a radial engine currently in DCS. And to be honest a radial engine is a must have experience. The Junkers Jumo 213 V12 is of course also a superb engine with more power, but you might have excellent V12's already if you own any of the other WWII birds.

Morning, mate, when did you do your last sortie? What about the bugs all people are complaining, particularly with bombing?

As far as I´m focussing on the ETO, say Normandy in the time of D-Day, the Anton would be the only choice for staying in that timeline... But the bugs are really deterrent if they are taht as massive as word goes...

Morning, mate, when did you do your last sortie? What about the bugs all people are complaining, particularly with bombing?

As far as I´m focussing on the ETO, say Normandy in the time of D-Day, the Anton would be the only choice for staying in that timeline... But the bugs are really deterrent if they are taht as massive as word goes...

The Bugs get ironed out. And currently the only bug I see critical, is the engine damage model. There is none. Check the Anton section regarding the CB pop up "problem". Bomb release works again.

I really like the Anton. Currently more than the Dora. But in the Anton you have a really hard time against Spits and Mustangs. I very often get sniped and see my plane continue to fly for a moment until it hits the ground.

Fox

The bomb drop function is fixed, so I don't see the issue. I enjoy the Anton very much in air-to-ground (at least in the open beta release). When did I fly Anton/Dora last ? Today actually, like the days before.

The bomb drop function is fixed, so I don't see the issue. I enjoy the Anton very much in air-to-ground (at least in the open beta release). When did I fly Anton/Dora last ? Today actually, like the days before.

Sound very good, mate! Besides the not existing damage model of the engine, are there any other bugs you can talk about?