Jump to content

Poll: 'E' armament Option for LF. IX


Poll: 'E' armament Option for LF. IX  

86 members have voted

  1. 1. Poll: 'E' armament Option for LF. IX

    • Yes please!
      71
    • No thanks.
      15


Recommended Posts

Given ED's recent penchant for polls, thought I'd put one up.

 

How many here would like the DCS Spitfire IX to get an option to have the 'e' type armament of 2x 20mm + 2x 0.50 cal?

 

Spitfire IXs with this armament option started coming off the production lines in late April of '44, with kits also being made available for to convert existing 'c' wing armed types.

 

Spitfires with this armament were used operationally over Normandy firstly by 136 Wing of 84 Group, 2nd TAF who had re-equipped by D-Day and then by 131, 134, 145 and 132 Wings also of 84 group plus 125 Wing of 83 Group who received their 'e' wing aircraft from mid-June to July.

 

Ergo, 'e' wing armed Spitfires are wholly appropriate for the Normandy map. Given that it was the desire - though not necessarily the reality - of 2nd TAF to have all their Spitfires so equipped and that to a large extent this was almost accomplished by the end of '44, the late war Jadgwaffe types we currently have would have been more likely to engage 'e' wing types, thus making the match up with these in DCS more prototypical, and similarly making the Spitfire more appropriate to any possible further late WW2 Western Europe Theatre map developments.

 

The effect on the DCS model would be >

 

1. Cannon shroud moves outboard and is shortened.

2. Cannon bulge on wing access panel moves outboard.

3. Modification to spent casing apertures

4. FM changes for alterations in weight distribution within the wing.


Edited by DD_Fenrir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voted yes as it makes more sense anyway, as the opposition provided at the moment is way ahead on the technological development time line.

 

What would be much better is to have the Griffon engine Spitfire of the time represented by the Spitfire Mk XIV, or a Tempest V. Plenty of them about at the time and much more in line with the technological development time line represented by the opposition aircraft.

 

Historically, air superiority allowed the continued use of older aircraft like the Spit IX and Typhoon during the war. However, we would not want air superiority modelled, LOL.

 

 

Happy landings,

Bell_UH-1 side.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't buy another Mk9. Not enough difference in performance to be worth it. Now....if it's a Mk 14....well, hell yes.

But, honestly. I'm happy with my Spit just the way it is. I think it's a terrific model.

 

I think the point of the poll is not another Mk IX but, like clipped wings, having the option to arm it with two .50 instead of the .303 which was a common armament on the LF Mk IX particularly and would be more common during the time that the 109K-4 and 190D-9 were in regular front line service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somehow I think the answer on this will be like the gondolas for the K-4. Maybe someday, but it was never originally promised so we aren't going to do it for now.

 

FYI if you just want to use it in SP it shouldn't be that hard to make one in the lua files. Wouldn't change the FM or 3d model though obviously. The same was done for the K-4 with a 20mm at some point.

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

"I think the point of the poll is not another Mk IX but, like clipped wings, having the option to arm it with two .50 instead of the .303 which was a common armament on the LF Mk IX particularly and would be more common during the time that the 109K-4 and 190D-9 were in regular front line service.

___

Ah!!! Then I humbly applogize and let me change that no to a resounding yes. I thought he wanted a whole new plane. Yeah, I'd like that, and I can't imagine that it would be all that hard to do, either._______________

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a greater amount of no's thus far than I expected.

 

Just out of curiosity, what reasons would you not want the expanded armament as an option?

 

Certain non-spit pilots could skew the poll and probably did.

 

I can't imagine any Spitfire aficionados who would vote against the .50 cals. The .303s being near useless.

That is a YES from myself of course.

Win 10 pro 64 bit. Intel i7 4790 4 Ghz running at 4.6. Asus z97 pro wifi main board, 32 gig 2400 ddr3 gold ram, 50 inch 4K UHD and HDR TV for monitor. H80 cpu cooler. 8 other cooling fans in full tower server case. Soundblaster ZX sound card. EVGA 1080 TI FTW3. TM Hotas Wartog. TM T.16000M MFG Crosswinds Pedals. Trackir 5.

"Everyone should fly a Spitfire at least once" John S. Blyth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is sensible and has merit as an achievable objective if chosen by ED to pursue.

Yes vote logged.

 

I honestly don't know where ED intend to take their DCS WW2 platform. Forum discussions often get complicated with MP Vs SP posts which serve mostly to distract from the important topic.

 

Full disclosure - SP should have everything MP has and visa versa leaving the player to have his/her choice of expericence in DCS intact and available. However, the future of DCS WW2 (I should say for me though I know I am not alone) absolutely is the MP environment but much is needed to be built to enable this to come to fruition.

 

The OP idea is absolutely a low hanging fruit category type update which would further DCS WW2 in a good direction. It could buy ED time also for their longer term DCS WW2 plans to be progressed.

 

S!


Edited by JokerMan
Spelling ... isn't it always spellllling ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a huge Spit fan and I voted against. If the question is "E armament vs nothing" the answer is clearly "go for it".

 

But I think the question is: "E armament, or keep working on more AI planes and the Thunderbolt, plus the new DM" in which case I couldn't care less about the E armament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be definitely nice to have the option, but on the other hand I'm not sure how much of it would be just a guns change without involving what variant/s had it, in which configuration/s, what engine/s, whatever it takes. If it were just a guns change it'd be nice having it, if it means and I guess it does more work in researching, finding, choosing and modelling an exact variant wearing E weaponry which is not exactly what we already have I think it can wait.

 

 

 

 

S!

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MoW, exactly the same airframe and engine combination we have currently is appropriate for the 'e' type armament. The changes that would be required are listed at the bottom of the original post.

 

Sure you could have the broad chord rudder but that did not start appearing till autumn of 44 in any appreciable numbers. Aircraft with the traditional style rudder would have flown over Normandy in the timeframe represented by the DCS map.


Edited by DD_Fenrir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't vote on Tapatalk, so I'll just put "yes" here. Though, I highly doubt ED will even take a glance at this thread, much less give it any consideration.

Hardware: T-16000M Pack, Saitek 3 Throttle Quadrant, Homemade 32-function Leo Bodnar Button Box, MFG Crosswind Pedals Oculus Rift S

System Specs: MSI MPG X570 GAMING PLUS, GTX 1070 SC2, AMD RX3700, 32GB DDR4-3200, Samsung 860 EVO, Samsung 970 EVO 250GB

Modules: Ka-50, Mi-8MTV2, FC3, F/A-18C, F-14B, F-5E, P-51D, Spitfire Mk LF Mk. IXc, Bf-109K-4, Fw-190A-8

Maps: Normandy, Nevada

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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