PDA

View Full Version : FW-190 Very interesting



slipBall
07-17-2006, 10:51 AM
Hello all
I was looking around on the German site and I found this topic. I find this very interesting, and I hope that BBB_Hyperion does not mind me reproducing here, on the English forum, for discussion. What I found so interesting, was the mention of frontal attack's, frontal armour, and long range ammo. Is regular cannon ammo considered long range. I have not had any sucess's out 1000m. I'm sure that our 190's are not modeled with this ammo, or are they?... but this is the first time that I have ever heard of such ammo being used. Any thought's




Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
(Poste ich mal hier zum zerreissen . √Ňďbersetzen kann ja mal jemand , wenn bedarf besteht)

"Russian Combat Experiences with the FW-190" from Tactical and Technical Trends

A translated Russian article from "Red Fleet" describing Russian aerial tactics against the German FW-190, from Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 37, November 4, 1943.

[DISCLAIMER: The following text is taken from the U.S. War Department publication Tactical and Technical Trends. As with all wartime intelligence information, data may be incomplete or inaccurate. No attempt has been made to update or correct the text. Any views or opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of the website.]


RUSSIAN COMBAT EXPERIENCES WITH THE FW-190

In all probability the Germans have used their FW-190s on the Russian front to a much lesser extent than elsewhere, and the standards of air combat on that front very likely differ from those over Western Europe and in the Mediterranean.

The following translation of an article which appeared in the "Red Fleet" compares some of the tactics used by the German and Russian fighter planes (FW-190 and La-5). It should be pointed out that these observations apply particularly to the Russian front and are not necessarily in line with experiences in other European theaters. This translation is published without evaluation or comment, purely for its informational value in presenting Russian opinion concerning the FW-190, as printed in the "Red Fleet."

* * *

The FW-190 first appeared on the Soviet-German front at the end of 1942. This is the first high-speed German fighter with an air-cooled engine. In comparison with the Me-109 and its modernized versions, the Me-109F and the Me-109G, the FW-190 is of a higher quality.

The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight. The FW-190 has a large supply of ammunition, with 15 seconds of cannon fire, and 50 seconds of constant machine-gun fire. For this reason the gunners are not economical with their ammunition, and often open up the so-called "frightening fire". The pilots have good visibility laterally, forward, upward and rearward. A fairly good horizontal maneuver permits the FW-190 to turn at low speed without falling into a tail spin. An armored ring on the front part of the engine provides the pilot with reliable protection; for this reason, the FW-190's quite often make frontal attacks. In this way they differ from the Me-109s.

One shortcoming of the FW-190 is its weight. The lightest model of this plane weighs 3,500 kgs. (7,700 lbs), while the average weight is from 3,800 (8,360 lbs) to 3,900 kgs. (8,580 lbs). Since the FW-190 is so heavy and does not have a high-altitude engine, pilots do not like to fight in vertical maneuvers. Another weak point in the FW-190 is the poor visibility downward, both forward and rearward. The FW-190 is seriously handicapped in still another way; there is no armor around the gas tanks, which are situated under the pilot's seat and behind it. From below, the pilot is not protected in any way; from behind, the only protection is the ordinary seat-back with 15-mm of armor. Even bullets from our large caliber machine guns penetrate this armor, to say nothing of cannon.

The main problem confronting our fliers is that of forcing the Germans to fight from positions advantageous to us.

The FW-190's eagerly make frontal attacks. Their methods of conducting fire in such cases is quite stereotyped. To begin with the Germans open fire with long-range ammunition from the horizontal cannons at a distance of 1,000 meters (3,200 feet). At 500 or 400 meters (1,000 or 1,300 feet) the FW-190 opens fire from all guns. Since the planes approach each other at an extremely great speed during frontal attacks one should never, under any circumstances, turn from the given course. Fire should be opened at a distance of 700 or 800 meters, (2,300 or 2,600 feet). Practice has shown that in frontal attacks both planes are so damaged that, in the majority of cases, they are compelled to drop out of the battle. Therefore, frontal attacks with FW-190's may be made only when the battle happens to be over our territory. Frontal engagements over enemy territory, or even more so in the enemy rear, should be avoided.

If a frontal attack of an FW-190 should fail the pilot usually attempts to change the attacks into a turning engagement. Being very stable and having a large range of speeds, the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed. Our Lavochkin-5 may freely take up the challenge, if the pilot uses the elevator tabs correctly. By using your foot to hold the plane from falling into a tail spin you can turn the La-5 at an exceedingly low speed, thus keeping the FW from getting on your tail.

When fighting the La-5, the FW risks a vertical maneuver only at high speed. For example, let us assume that the first frontal attack of an FW failed. The plane then goes on ahead and prepares for a second frontal attack. If it fails a second time, the pilot turns sharply to the side and goes into a steep dive. On coming out of the dive, he picks up speed in horizontal flight and engages the opposing plane in a vertical maneuver.

Vertical-maneuver fighting with the FW-190 is usually of short duration since our planes have a better rate of climb than the German planes, and because the Germans are unable to withstand tense battles of any length.

The winner in present air battles must have an advantage in altitude. This is especially true with regard to the FW-190. "Once a comrade of mine and I engaged two FW-190's at a height of 3,500 meters (10,850 ft). After three energetic attacks we succeeded in chasing the two FW-190's down to 1,500 meters (4,650 ft). All the while we kept our advantage in height. As usual the German tried, out of an inverted turn, to get away and below, but I got one in my sight and shot it down. After that we immediately went up to 3,700 meters (11,470 ft) and met another group of FW-190's as they were attacking one of our Pe-2 bombers. We made use of our advantage in height and by vertical attacks succeeded in chasing the Germans away and also shot one down."

When following a diving FW you should never dive below the other enemy planes. When two planes dive the one following the leader should come out of the dive in such a way as to be at an advantage over the leading plane in height and speed. In this way the tail of the leading plane will be protected; at the same time, the second plane will also be able to open up direct fire against the enemy.

In fighting the FW-190 our La-5 should force the Germans to fight by using the vertical maneuver. This may be achieved by constantly making vertical attacks. The first climb of the FW is usually good, the second worse, and the third altogether poor. This may be explained by the fact that the FW's great weight does not permit it to gather speed quickly in the vertical maneuver. After two or three persistent attacks by our fighters the FWs completely lose their advantage in height and in speed, and inevitably find themselves below. And because of this, they are sure to drop out of the battle into a straight dive (sometimes up to 90 degrees) with the idea of gaining height on the side, and then of coming in again from the side of the sun with an advantage in speed and height. At times it happens that the FW, after diving, does not gain altitude, but attempts to drop out of the battle altogether in low flight. However, the FW-190 is never able to come out of a dive below 300 or 250 meters (930 ft or 795 ft). Coming out of a dive, made from 1,500 meters (4,650 ft) and at an angle of 40 to 45 degrees, the FW-190 falls an extra 200 meters (620 ft).

A shortcoming of the FW-190 is its poor climbing ability. When climbing in order to get an altitude advantage over the enemy, there is a moment when the FW-190 "hangs" in the air. It is then convenient to fire. Therefore, when following a FW-190 in a dive, you should bring your plane out of the dive slightly before the FW comes out of it, in order to catch up with him on the vertical plane. In other words, when the FW comes out of the dive you should bring your plane out in such a way as to have an advantage over the enemy in height. If this can be achieved, the FW-190 becomes a fine target when it "hangs". Direct fire should be opened up at a short distance, 50 to 100 meters (150 to 300 ft). It should also be remembered that the weakest spots of the FW-190 are below and behind--the gasoline tanks and the pilot's legs, which are not protected.

Throughout the whole engagement with a FW-190, it is necessary to maintain the highest speed possible. The Lavochkin-5 will then have, when necessary, a good vertical maneuver, and consequently, the possibility of getting away from an enemy attack or on the contrary, of attacking. It should further be kept in mind that the La-5 and the FW-190 in outward appearance resemble each other very much; therefore, careful observation is of great importance. We may emphasize once more: never let an enemy plane gain an altitude advantage over you and you will win the fight.

Ist schon etwas √¬§lter m√¬∂glicherweise repost.

slipBall
07-17-2006, 10:51 AM
Hello all
I was looking around on the German site and I found this topic. I find this very interesting, and I hope that BBB_Hyperion does not mind me reproducing here, on the English forum, for discussion. What I found so interesting, was the mention of frontal attack's, frontal armour, and long range ammo. Is regular cannon ammo considered long range. I have not had any sucess's out 1000m. I'm sure that our 190's are not modeled with this ammo, or are they?... but this is the first time that I have ever heard of such ammo being used. Any thought's



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
(Poste ich mal hier zum zerreissen . √Ňďbersetzen kann ja mal jemand , wenn bedarf besteht)

"Russian Combat Experiences with the FW-190" from Tactical and Technical Trends

A translated Russian article from "Red Fleet" describing Russian aerial tactics against the German FW-190, from Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 37, November 4, 1943.

[DISCLAIMER: The following text is taken from the U.S. War Department publication Tactical and Technical Trends. As with all wartime intelligence information, data may be incomplete or inaccurate. No attempt has been made to update or correct the text. Any views or opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of the website.]


RUSSIAN COMBAT EXPERIENCES WITH THE FW-190

In all probability the Germans have used their FW-190s on the Russian front to a much lesser extent than elsewhere, and the standards of air combat on that front very likely differ from those over Western Europe and in the Mediterranean.

The following translation of an article which appeared in the "Red Fleet" compares some of the tactics used by the German and Russian fighter planes (FW-190 and La-5). It should be pointed out that these observations apply particularly to the Russian front and are not necessarily in line with experiences in other European theaters. This translation is published without evaluation or comment, purely for its informational value in presenting Russian opinion concerning the FW-190, as printed in the "Red Fleet."

* * *

The FW-190 first appeared on the Soviet-German front at the end of 1942. This is the first high-speed German fighter with an air-cooled engine. In comparison with the Me-109 and its modernized versions, the Me-109F and the Me-109G, the FW-190 is of a higher quality.

The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight. The FW-190 has a large supply of ammunition, with 15 seconds of cannon fire, and 50 seconds of constant machine-gun fire. For this reason the gunners are not economical with their ammunition, and often open up the so-called "frightening fire". The pilots have good visibility laterally, forward, upward and rearward. A fairly good horizontal maneuver permits the FW-190 to turn at low speed without falling into a tail spin. An armored ring on the front part of the engine provides the pilot with reliable protection; for this reason, the FW-190's quite often make frontal attacks. In this way they differ from the Me-109s.

One shortcoming of the FW-190 is its weight. The lightest model of this plane weighs 3,500 kgs. (7,700 lbs), while the average weight is from 3,800 (8,360 lbs) to 3,900 kgs. (8,580 lbs). Since the FW-190 is so heavy and does not have a high-altitude engine, pilots do not like to fight in vertical maneuvers. Another weak point in the FW-190 is the poor visibility downward, both forward and rearward. The FW-190 is seriously handicapped in still another way; there is no armor around the gas tanks, which are situated under the pilot's seat and behind it. From below, the pilot is not protected in any way; from behind, the only protection is the ordinary seat-back with 15-mm of armor. Even bullets from our large caliber machine guns penetrate this armor, to say nothing of cannon.

The main problem confronting our fliers is that of forcing the Germans to fight from positions advantageous to us.

The FW-190's eagerly make frontal attacks. Their methods of conducting fire in such cases is quite stereotyped. To begin with the Germans open fire with long-range ammunition from the horizontal cannons at a distance of 1,000 meters (3,200 feet). At 500 or 400 meters (1,000 or 1,300 feet) the FW-190 opens fire from all guns. Since the planes approach each other at an extremely great speed during frontal attacks one should never, under any circumstances, turn from the given course. Fire should be opened at a distance of 700 or 800 meters, (2,300 or 2,600 feet). Practice has shown that in frontal attacks both planes are so damaged that, in the majority of cases, they are compelled to drop out of the battle. Therefore, frontal attacks with FW-190's may be made only when the battle happens to be over our territory. Frontal engagements over enemy territory, or even more so in the enemy rear, should be avoided.

If a frontal attack of an FW-190 should fail the pilot usually attempts to change the attacks into a turning engagement. Being very stable and having a large range of speeds, the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed. Our Lavochkin-5 may freely take up the challenge, if the pilot uses the elevator tabs correctly. By using your foot to hold the plane from falling into a tail spin you can turn the La-5 at an exceedingly low speed, thus keeping the FW from getting on your tail.

When fighting the La-5, the FW risks a vertical maneuver only at high speed. For example, let us assume that the first frontal attack of an FW failed. The plane then goes on ahead and prepares for a second frontal attack. If it fails a second time, the pilot turns sharply to the side and goes into a steep dive. On coming out of the dive, he picks up speed in horizontal flight and engages the opposing plane in a vertical maneuver.

Vertical-maneuver fighting with the FW-190 is usually of short duration since our planes have a better rate of climb than the German planes, and because the Germans are unable to withstand tense battles of any length.

The winner in present air battles must have an advantage in altitude. This is especially true with regard to the FW-190. "Once a comrade of mine and I engaged two FW-190's at a height of 3,500 meters (10,850 ft). After three energetic attacks we succeeded in chasing the two FW-190's down to 1,500 meters (4,650 ft). All the while we kept our advantage in height. As usual the German tried, out of an inverted turn, to get away and below, but I got one in my sight and shot it down. After that we immediately went up to 3,700 meters (11,470 ft) and met another group of FW-190's as they were attacking one of our Pe-2 bombers. We made use of our advantage in height and by vertical attacks succeeded in chasing the Germans away and also shot one down."

When following a diving FW you should never dive below the other enemy planes. When two planes dive the one following the leader should come out of the dive in such a way as to be at an advantage over the leading plane in height and speed. In this way the tail of the leading plane will be protected; at the same time, the second plane will also be able to open up direct fire against the enemy.

In fighting the FW-190 our La-5 should force the Germans to fight by using the vertical maneuver. This may be achieved by constantly making vertical attacks. The first climb of the FW is usually good, the second worse, and the third altogether poor. This may be explained by the fact that the FW's great weight does not permit it to gather speed quickly in the vertical maneuver. After two or three persistent attacks by our fighters the FWs completely lose their advantage in height and in speed, and inevitably find themselves below. And because of this, they are sure to drop out of the battle into a straight dive (sometimes up to 90 degrees) with the idea of gaining height on the side, and then of coming in again from the side of the sun with an advantage in speed and height. At times it happens that the FW, after diving, does not gain altitude, but attempts to drop out of the battle altogether in low flight. However, the FW-190 is never able to come out of a dive below 300 or 250 meters (930 ft or 795 ft). Coming out of a dive, made from 1,500 meters (4,650 ft) and at an angle of 40 to 45 degrees, the FW-190 falls an extra 200 meters (620 ft).

A shortcoming of the FW-190 is its poor climbing ability. When climbing in order to get an altitude advantage over the enemy, there is a moment when the FW-190 "hangs" in the air. It is then convenient to fire. Therefore, when following a FW-190 in a dive, you should bring your plane out of the dive slightly before the FW comes out of it, in order to catch up with him on the vertical plane. In other words, when the FW comes out of the dive you should bring your plane out in such a way as to have an advantage over the enemy in height. If this can be achieved, the FW-190 becomes a fine target when it "hangs". Direct fire should be opened up at a short distance, 50 to 100 meters (150 to 300 ft). It should also be remembered that the weakest spots of the FW-190 are below and behind--the gasoline tanks and the pilot's legs, which are not protected.

Throughout the whole engagement with a FW-190, it is necessary to maintain the highest speed possible. The Lavochkin-5 will then have, when necessary, a good vertical maneuver, and consequently, the possibility of getting away from an enemy attack or on the contrary, of attacking. It should further be kept in mind that the La-5 and the FW-190 in outward appearance resemble each other very much; therefore, careful observation is of great importance. We may emphasize once more: never let an enemy plane gain an altitude advantage over you and you will win the fight.

Ist schon etwas √¬§lter m√¬∂glicherweise repost. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

leitmotiv
07-17-2006, 11:11 AM
Sehr interessant

Thanks for the correction, Christian W---I thought it was interessant but I thought again and blew it!

cawimmer430
07-17-2006, 11:14 AM
Interesting pilots manual. I've heard that the Focke Wulf was pretty adept at head-on attacks because its radial engine could take a pounding and still function somewhat. Oh well, I'm a BF-109 fan despite the FW-190's overall better qualities. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

cawimmer430
07-17-2006, 11:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Sehr interessierend. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<span class="ev_code_RED">Sehr interessant</span> http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Jaws2002
07-17-2006, 11:18 AM
Great read. Thank you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Can you imagine LA-5 having a hard time against the FW-190 in slow speed horizontal turning combat?????? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Vrabac
07-17-2006, 11:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slipBall:
It should further be kept in mind that the La-5 and the FW-190 in outward appearance resemble each other very much </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Someone was high... Maybe they used SFS extractor on 190? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

leitmotiv
07-17-2006, 11:34 AM
It's like the Bf 109/P-51/Spitfire brawl going on elsewhere---they were all great airplanes, all had strong suits, all had weaknesses, and all depended on good pilots and good tactics to win. Considering all the people who absolutely insist the Fw was only used for vertical hit and run attacks, I found this enlightening, to say the least. Johnny Johnson, the great English Spitfire leader/pilot, was nearly nailed by a 190 which was out-turning him in his Spit V on the day of the Dieppe battle in 1942. Most Spit and 190 "experts" would say this was impossible.

Vrabac
07-17-2006, 11:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
It's like the Bf 109/P-51/Spitfire brawl going on elsewhere---they were all great airplanes, all had strong suits, all had weaknesses, and all depended on good pilots and good tactics to win. Considering all the people who absolutely insist the Fw was only used for vertical hit and run attacks, I found this enlightening, to say the least. Johnny Johnson, the great English Spitfire leader/pilot, was nearly nailed by a 190 which was out-turning him in his Spit V on the day of the Dieppe battle in 1942. Most Spit and 190 "experts" would say this was impossible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. The 190 the real pilots are talking about seems to be something way different that the one we have. Than again keep in mind RL engagements rarely saw continuous turning and wild manouvering at 180kmh as we often see in game.

slipBall
07-17-2006, 11:46 AM
This article if accurate re-writes for me 190 tactic's

waffen-79
07-17-2006, 11:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slipBall:
Hello all
I was looking around </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IMO that sounds like propaganda, more than a combat manual

...saying, no matter what we can get them down, comrades

CMHQ_Rikimaru
07-17-2006, 11:55 AM
There are two options :
1) Russian propagandahttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
2) Most of FW190 on east front were jabo version, also pilots very often were just pilots of bombers like stuka, so its not a surprise that they couldnt fight effectivly. Also, jabo version of FW190 had another setup of engine, so its maneuverabilty on low speeds could be better, but worse on high speeds, because engine was set up for carrying bombs, not fighting.

StellarRat
07-17-2006, 11:57 AM
Don't deviate from course when going head to head with a 190??? Yikes!

I think they must be talking about early model 190's because the late models climb pretty fast. But, the A4 - 6 are pretty much hopeless in a climb.

slipBall
07-17-2006, 12:05 PM
Vertical-maneuver fighting with the FW-190 is usually of short duration since our planes have a better rate of climb than the German planes, and because the Germans are unable to withstand tense battles of any length



Some parts do indeed sound like propaganda, but would they feed it to men, resulting, the cost of aircraft and pilot

carguy_
07-17-2006, 02:08 PM
Very interesting indeed as many of us suspect the ingame FW190 is made according to Soviet view of it.

Let`s start. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slightly higher?!Ingame about 200km/h AFAIK - that is hardly slightly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Horizontal flight.Ok it has a very good elevator control but is a poor horizontal fighter.I don`t get it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A fairly good horizontal maneuver permits the FW-190 to turn at low speed without falling into a tail spin. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So it`s still a poor horizontal fighter,right?
Ingame it is shuddering violently when attempting to go horizontal below 400km/h.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Since the FW-190 is so heavy and does not have a high-altitude engine------ pilots do not like to fight in vertical maneuvers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I do not see connection between two parts of this sentence.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The FW-190 is seriously handicapped in still another way; there is no armor around the gas tanks, which are situated under the pilot's seat and behind it. From below, the pilot is not protected in any way; from behind, the only protection is the ordinary seat-back with 15-mm of armor. Even bullets from our large caliber machine guns penetrate this armor, to say nothing of cannon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Here I see compared to real life on eastern front Oleg treats the FW very optimistic.Ingame FW190 pilot seems to be very well protected from all angles besides the canopy itself.Won`t even count how many times I`ve been hit in those "sweet spots" and still the plane kept on flying fairly well.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If a frontal attack of an FW-190 should fail the pilot usually attempts to change the attacks into a turning engagement. Being very stable and having a large range of speeds, the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed. Our Lavochkin-5 may freely take up the challenge, if the pilot uses the elevator tabs correctly. By using your foot to hold the plane from falling into a tail spin you can turn the La-5 at an exceedingly low speed, thus keeping the FW from getting on your tail. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I don`t know if I want to believe Soviets.This type of fighting seems to be purely suicidal for the FW190.Low speed handling is terrible too.No flaps help this.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When fighting the La-5, the FW risks a vertical maneuver only at high speed. For example, let us assume that the first frontal attack of an FW failed. The plane then goes on ahead and prepares for a second frontal attack. If it fails a second time, the pilot turns sharply to the side and goes into a steep dive. On coming out of the dive, he picks up speed in horizontal flight and engages the opposing plane in a vertical maneuver. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahah so the FW190 is a poor vertical fighter but the vertical maneuvering attacks are a standard tactic of the Lufwaffe?How naive can you get?



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Vertical-maneuver fighting with the FW-190 is usually of short duration since our planes have a better rate of climb than the German planes, and because the Germans are unable to withstand tense battles of any length. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just pointing this one out cuz it resembles what we have ingame.Two or three high speed passes and downright running is the best tectic.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In fighting the FW-190 our La-5 should force the Germans to fight by using the vertical maneuver. This may be achieved by constantly making vertical attacks. The first climb of the FW is usually good, the second worse, and the third altogether poor. This may be explained by the fact that the FW's great weight does not permit it to gather speed quickly in the vertical maneuver. After two or three persistent attacks by our fighters the FWs completely lose their advantage in height and in speed, and inevitably find themselves below. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This I find VERY well resembled ingame.Although the IL2 version of FW190 has a terrible elevator characteristics below 400km/h.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A shortcoming of the FW-190 is its poor climbing ability. When climbing in order to get an altitude advantage over the enemy, there is a moment when the FW-190 "hangs" in the air. It is then convenient to fire. Therefore, when following a FW-190 in a dive, you should bring your plane out of the dive slightly before the FW comes out of it, in order to catch up with him on the vertical plane. In other words, when the FW comes out of the dive you should bring your plane out in such a way as to have an advantage over the enemy in height. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Very good pilot tip on how to beat the Butcher,especially when there were not many experienced FW190ers around.For an ace however,this type of reacting to red plane`s moves is ,shall we say,moronic.

Oh yes.Poor climbing ability,huh.Tough one.All FW190 seem to be slightly above average in this.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Throughout the whole engagement with a FW-190, it is necessary to maintain the highest speed possible. The Lavochkin-5 will then have, when necessary, a good vertical maneuver, and consequently, the possibility of getting away from an enemy attack or on the contrary, of attacking. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Exactly the opposite ingame.A FW190 will run you down,it will win a 450km/h turnfigh and it will be able to exit the engagement at will.



Overall a nice article.Few big mistakes in the tips seem to create a rather encouraging character of the read.Which leads me to suspect that it is propaganda.
And the big question.IF this article resembles the ingame FW190 pretty well(IMO) AND it is propaganda,why did Oleg create such a Focke Wulf 190?


Additionaly the article author forgot to mention more of the liiiiiiitle detail he mentioned in one 5-line paragraph. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

If this poor climbing,poor vertical,poorly armored and heavy fighter has a friend or two,you`re in for a hell of a fight.
Personally I`d rather be in the FW190 in this case http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

slipBall
07-17-2006, 02:33 PM
I did a timeing of the weapon's in a A5. I ran out of cannon fire in 6 second's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif, but weapon 1 was exactly 50 second's, as advertised, in the Rusian report http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

robban75
07-17-2006, 03:37 PM
From my testings none of the in game Fw 190's can match the russian turn times. In game numbers are 2-3 second worse. And the russian numbers, at least for the Fw 190A-4 is for a Jabo in poor condition.

Maybe I'm just doing it wrong? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif Anybody get better turn times than this?

The turn tests was done over Crimea at 1000m. Full fuel, full power and default loadout was used. I made three 360's. Time in seconds below.

A-4 - 25.08 - 25.07 - 25.17

A-5 - 24.02 - 24.31 - 24.36

A-8 - 25.90 - 25.56 - 26.56

A-9 - 25.98 - 26.05 - 26.72

D-9 - 24.62 - 24.70 - 24.49

152 - 23.58 - 23.97 - 23.93


I remember reading a group of Yaks attacking an airfield that were home to a unit flying Fw 190's. One pilot managed to get an Fw 190 airborn. One Yak returned to shoot him down, but he failed. What followed was a gut wrenching dogfight that took place just above the treetops. In the end the pilot in the 190 managed to score some hits on the Yak and it fled towards its homebase. Anybody got some more info on this incident?

The 190 wasn't the best turner, but I truly believe it was alot better than what we see in game.

OMK_Hand
07-17-2006, 03:58 PM
Flaps on the 190 are very strong, and their use makes quite a difference in a turn.

BfHeFwMe
07-17-2006, 05:35 PM
It was well known in the west that 190's oil cooler rings were placed ahead of the armor in the cowl and vulnerable. Any leak from a hit sent hot oil spraying into the hot engine with a high chance of fire. They were not to eager for head on runs in the west.

Can't imagine them deliberatly doing them behind red lines. But than the odds may have been better against lighter armed, smaller ammo capacity planes.

faustnik
07-17-2006, 06:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
It was well known in the west that 190's oil cooler rings were placed ahead of the armor in the cowl and vulnerable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The armor was in front of the oil cooler, protecting the oil cooler from the head-on attack.

Airmail109
07-17-2006, 06:28 PM
TO be honest ive always thought armouring fighters is a stupid idea....if someone can bring their guns onto you....you made a big mistake and your as good as dead. If i was an fw-190 pilot during the war...i wudve chucked out most of the armour, 2 of the cannons, and any other bumf that wasnt necesary.

A fighter should have the lightest air frame possible, coupled with the most powerfull engine available. All to often the germans knackered their designs by overbuilding them....Ju88 for example....great plane until they strengthend it for dive bombing and added tonnes of armour....speed is what allows you to survive not armour.

LStarosta
07-17-2006, 06:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
TO be honest ive always thought armouring fighters is a stupid idea....if someone can bring their guns onto you....you made a big mistake and your as good as dead. If i was an fw-190 pilot during the war...i wudve chucked out most of the armour, 2 of the cannons, and any other bumf that wasnt necesary.

A fighter should have the lightest air frame possible, coupled with the most powerfull engine available. All to often the germans knackered their designs by overbuilding them....Ju88 for example....great plane until they strengthend it for dive bombing and added tonnes of armour....speed is what allows you to survive not armour. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's what the Russians thought.

And I have a quote from a LW flyer from WWII that said Russians were n00bs.

Jaws2002
07-17-2006, 07:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
TO be honest ive always thought armouring fighters is a stupid idea....if someone can bring their guns onto you....you made a big mistake and your as good as dead. If i was an fw-190 pilot during the war...i wudve chucked out most of the armour, 2 of the cannons, and any other bumf that wasnt necesary.

A fighter should have the lightest air frame possible, coupled with the most powerfull engine available. All to often the germans knackered their designs by overbuilding them....Ju88 for example....great plane until they strengthend it for dive bombing and added tonnes of armour....speed is what allows you to survive not armour. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


That's you.
When you get hit there's no bailing.

You can't bail, you don't live to fight another day. Pilot armor and self sealing fuel tanks are a requirement in any fighter.

During WW2 was cheaper to build an aircraft then to train a pilot, and when all good, experienced pilots are dead, doesn't matter what the noobs fly. They are just noobs and they will go down in flames.

Look at Japan's case.

carguy_
07-17-2006, 07:07 PM
Looks like Aimail likes to be killed with 7mm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Jaws2002
07-17-2006, 07:10 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BfHeFwMe
07-17-2006, 07:28 PM
Correction, the armor was in front of the "oil tank", but the circular cooling tubes were behind the fan and exposed to gunfire. Why would they shove the cooling transfer loop behind armor where there's little to no airflow, especially when early versions had chronic overheat problems?

BBB_Hyperion
07-17-2006, 07:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slipBall:
Hello all
I was looking around on the German site and I found this topic. I find this very interesting, and I hope that BBB_Hyperion does not mind me reproducing here, on the English forum, for discussion.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course i dont mind. I got this in a not frequently used email account and before deleting it though maybe someone can have a good laugh and insights into
fw190 observations.

Here are some other older things from my archive (just tested png export).
http://rapidshare.de/files/26132334/Tactics_soviet_fighter_tactics.png.html
(press free at bottom wait timer ,enter image code and select download server)

Jaws2002
07-17-2006, 07:40 PM
When a pilot ends up going for the head on, the oil cooler is the last thing is going in his mind.
He knows he has big guns and a lot of them. Has frontal armor, one big radial engine and thick armored glass to protect HIM.HIM, the pilot is what is important, not the oil cooler.

When he's on the collision course with other aircraft with 1000 km/h closing rate, the last thing he worries about is the oil cooler.

What good is for the dead spitfire pilot that he got the oil cooler on the FW?

lbhskier37
07-17-2006, 07:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Correction, the armor was in front of the "oil tank", but the circular cooling tubes were behind the fan and exposed to gunfire. Why would they shove the cooling transfer loop behind armor where there's little to no airflow, especially when early versions had chronic overheat problems? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sorry the heat exchanger was behind the armored ring. The airflow was ducted to flow up around the ring. The fan was there for force air through the cowl to cool the heads. Overheating was a problem with the exhaust stacks, had nothing to do with the oil cooler.

luftluuver
07-17-2006, 07:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Correction, the armor was in front of the "oil tank", but the circular cooling tubes were behind the fan and exposed to gunfire. Why would they shove the cooling transfer loop behind armor where there's little to no airflow, especially when early versions had chronic overheat problems? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There was 2 armoured rings. The front one was for the oil cooler and the second was for the oil tank.

The A-8 manual shows this very clearly &gt; item 1 - cooler armour, item 3 - oil tank armour.

blakduk
07-17-2006, 08:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
TO be honest ive always thought armouring fighters is a stupid idea....if someone can bring their guns onto you....you made a big mistake and your as good as dead. If i was an fw-190 pilot during the war...i wudve chucked out most of the armour, 2 of the cannons, and any other bumf that wasnt necesary.

A fighter should have the lightest air frame possible, coupled with the most powerfull engine available. All to often the germans knackered their designs by overbuilding them....Ju88 for example....great plane until they strengthend it for dive bombing and added tonnes of armour....speed is what allows you to survive not armour. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was exactly what aircraft designers believed BEFORE combat started in WW2. The pilots of the BEF who survived their first encounters with the LW in the air battles over France jury-rigged all the armour the could for their Hurricanes.
1 on 1 dogfights, where maneuverability was key, were quite rare. Most killing was done with bounces and stealth. The pilots needed machines that were fast and could survive punishment. They had missions to fulfill, not personal tallies to boast about, and they wanted to survive.
The example of the JU88 is not relevant to this discussion. There was confusion about the role it was supposed to fulfill.
If you look at the fighters that were sent against the USAAF in the western front- they were all about surviving the defensive fire of the B17's while hitting them as hard as they could in a very brief encounter.
The late war fighters were a lot less pretty and a lot heavier by the end of WW2- but they were much more deadly.
Remember the men in those machines were flesh and blood- it only took one bullet to kill him. The killing power of a 303 bullet was all it took to kill a man and initially all it took to kill a plane- as the war progressed the calibre it took to kill a man stayed the same, but to kill his machine required a lot more firepower.

p1ngu666
07-17-2006, 09:24 PM
i think they mean in the vertical stuff, going upwards, maybe sustained and around that area climb?

the p47 was a great vertical fighter, if u where going down.., sustained climb wasnt all that..

speeds irl combat, from what ive read anyways tends tobe higher than what we have ingame.. that plays a part too.

and blakduk is right, spitfire i think doubled the power, the weight, rate of climb, speed went up a fair bit, firepower went up alot too. say a 20mm hispano is worth 3.3 50cals, lets say theres 3 303s to a 50cal +1 bonus for the tiger tank http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

so thats 4x20mm, = 13.2 50cals, 13.2 x = 39.6

divide that by 8 (first spits had 8 303), and u get just under 5.

5 times the firepower http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

TX-Gunslinger
07-17-2006, 11:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slipBall:
I did a timeing of the weapon's in a A5. I ran out of cannon fire in 6 second's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif, but weapon 1 was exactly 50 second's, as advertised, in the Rusian report http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, that 6-7 seconds you observed was for the outer MG/FF cannon.

Then inner MG151/20 (the sweet ones) will fire for 22 seconds.

Perhaps the MG's have changed in a patch. Last I knew the MG17's would fire for over 60 seconds.

Go to an outside view and time them. Problem is that you can't decouple outer Anton cannons from innner as in IRL. When you fire cannons only, in the IL2 series, the outer units are triggered, while firing machine guns only will fire both the nose MG's and the inboard wing cannons.

Good reference used to be:

http://www.partizanska-eskadrila.com/reference/190.html

S~

Gun

TX-Gunslinger
07-18-2006, 12:07 AM
Over the years numerous accounts have surfaced of Anton turning ability which don't seem to make sense in light of aerodynamic principles applied to static aircraft and foriegn material exploitation programs, such as RAE tests on captured Luftwaffe equipment.

I'm on travel now and can't get to my bookshelf, however I remember reading in (I think) Norbert Hannig's book, how real FW-190 pilots routinely used elevator trim to tighten turns. They loved the fact that the electric control mechanisms allowed them to manipulate the trim while in a turn, in combat at high G's which would have been impossible in other aircraft.

Yes, you got it - trim on a slider (I hope old unibrow is rolling in his virtual grave). After all the gnashing of teeth on forums about the "trim on a slider" exploit, there was one aircraft which actually was built with it. The FW-190.

Because the trim was actuated electrically, by a small switch just under the throttle, it was very easy to manipulate. Trim on other aircraft (at least the Russian one's) was actuated by a wheel, which had to be rotated by hand. Makes me wonder if any U.S. aircraft had electrical trim. Certainly Russian Aircraft didn't.

https://webspace.utexas.edu/joem/FW190%20historical%20Tech/Trim_FW190A8_DM_01.jpg

https://webspace.utexas.edu/joem/FW190%20historical%20Tech/Cons_L_FW190A8_DM_02.jpg



Now, I'm not saying this makes the FW-190 turn like a Zero, but it sure would have improved turn times, at least enough to gain angles on some lower wingloaded aircraft, at some speeds. This is my own rationale for the disparity between what many real pilots observed, and other information. No FW-190 flies today, nor has flown for many decades. White 1 and the Flug Werk replica's are the first. Perhaps they'll tell us just how many degree/s per second the turns would improve by.

Anyway, I just think the truth is hilarious and wanted to share a laugh

S~ and happy TRIMMUNG

Gun

Ratsack
07-18-2006, 12:39 AM
Gunslinger,

Do you know what the red button on the throttle is?

cheers,
Ratsack

F19_Ob
07-18-2006, 04:21 AM
In my experience When ww2 Russians (and Germans)use the word "maneuverable"
They seemingly mean good roll-rate and not turning ability.

In most Russian accounts I've read, the fw190 was a poor Performer in turning, and was only a threat in head-ons or with E advantage.
The 109 was the over all better performer, even according to German pilots.

To me it sounds like this source have mixed things up a bit;especially the part that says;

"A fairly good horizontal maneuver permits the FW-190 to turn at low speed without falling into a tail spin"

I also belive they compare it to the early La5, wich ofcourse Is a poor slow-speed turner compared to La5F and FN.


Well...something feels out of place with it.
One Russian that come to mind is Golodnikov.
He gave a quite detailed account of it in his interviews.

Here:
http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/

Badsight-
07-18-2006, 04:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
TO be honest ive always thought armouring fighters is a stupid idea....if someone can bring their guns onto you....you made a big mistake and your as good as dead. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>the Japanese misubishi engineers thought exactly the same way

they made a zippo fighter

in multiple situations its not out-right turn & climb that will keep you alive . its the ability to take hits & Wingmen that increases your ability to RTB

the Wildcat was out-classed in performance in everything except max dive-speed - yet the Wildcat had an equal/better kill ratio (depending on battle) & a good RTB ratio

best RTB ratio of WW2 for a fighter doesnt belong to a Spitfire or Bf-109 or La-5/7 - its the heavy slow turn/climb P-47

safest fighter to fly during WW2 = P-47 D = heavily armoured plane with hit taking ability

lbhskier37
07-18-2006, 05:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
TO be honest ive always thought armouring fighters is a stupid idea....if someone can bring their guns onto you....you made a big mistake and your as good as dead. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>the Japanese misubishi engineers thought exactly the same way

they made a zippo fighter

in multiple situations its not out-right turn & climb that will keep you alive . its the ability to take hits & Wingmen that increases your ability to RTB

the Wildcat was out-classed in performance in everything except max dive-speed - yet the Wildcat had an equal/better kill ratio (depending on battle) & a good RTB ratio

best RTB ratio of WW2 for a fighter doesnt belong to a Spitfire or Bf-109 or La-5/7 - its the heavy slow turn/climb P-47

safest fighter to fly during WW2 = P-47 D = heavily armoured plane with hit taking ability </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also you guys gotta remember you are not going to outmaneuver flak and small arms ground fire. With no armor even small arms fire would be very dangerous to a fighter when flying relatively low if his plane had no armor. What do you think downed more fighters over Germany, flak or other fighters?

WOLFMondo
07-18-2006, 05:12 AM
Flak! More Tempests were lost to flak than any other cause. But thats what happens when you go after airfields which specifically had 262 units there and at least one flak battalion.

WWMaxGunz
07-18-2006, 05:19 AM
A ways into the reading I came to understand that the performance comparisons were between
the FW's that pilot faced at the time and the La-5's that pilots was flying at the time.
About then it became entirely understandable what he was saying. Yeah, jabo 190's would
be just that much safer to make head-on attacks with and also suffer on sustained climb
and acceleration for example. From there, the turns tell me that the La-5's were probably
just that and perhaps the sim La-5 FM is a bit optimistic but nothing to cry over as was
noted that if you handle the La-5 right then you don't get outturned at low speed yet IRL
it was not something you wanted to push for fear of the tail spin.

Long range ammo would be shells over MG's because the shells will do much more damage at
long range if they hit. As to long range shots the practical point is the time to target
of the projectile versus the unpredicted movement of the target that really sets the range.
I've made long range shots since IL2 on targets that held position and seen likewise set up
shots over 1 km with Mk 108's on screenshots. But how often does the rabbit stay so still?

Yeah in a head on you stay on compass course but (and I have forgotten to do this online)
the wise thing is to fly under the oncoming plane as it makes you very hard to hit, that
can be read in Shaw's book and a number of other good sources. Turning first just gives
the other guy foreknowledge of your next move along with an advantage in geometry.

Somebody beat me to it, comparing Aimails ideal fighter to the Zero. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
That's right up there with leadspitter's line about great fighter pilots and ammo on return.

BfHeFwMe
07-18-2006, 09:26 PM
Armored or not Yank pilots still viewed the oil coolant system as a major weakness in 190's. One bullet in there bouncing off the solid engine block or armor plate had a good chance of tearing oil lines, end result fire.

Do a google on clobber colledge. Nearly every fighter unit in the 8th set them up, specifically to address issues and share vital information.

Russians basically copied the engine and cooling fans, but placed the oil system and heat exchanger below and aft.

Jaws2002
07-18-2006, 09:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Armored or not Yank pilots still viewed the oil coolant system as a major weakness in 190's. One bullet in there bouncing off the solid engine block or armor plate had a good chance of tearing oil lines, end result fire.

Do a google on clobber colledge. Nearly every fighter unit in the 8th set them up, specifically to address issues and share vital information.

Russians basically copied the engine and cooling fans, but placed the oil system and heat exchanger below and aft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


LMAO. You and your oil cooler. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

What would you better have, a leaking oil cooler or a blown up head? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

anarchy52
07-19-2006, 10:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
TO be honest ive always thought armouring fighters is a stupid idea....if someone can bring their guns onto you....you made a big mistake and your as good as dead. If i was an fw-190 pilot during the war...i wudve chucked out most of the armour, 2 of the cannons, and any other bumf that wasnt necesary.

A fighter should have the lightest air frame possible, coupled with the most powerfull engine available. All to often the germans knackered their designs by overbuilding them....Ju88 for example....great plane until they strengthend it for dive bombing and added tonnes of armour....speed is what allows you to survive not armour. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, so did the IJN think, so they did design the extremely agile, excellent climbing, reasoneably well armed aircraft. No armour though.

Jaws2002
07-19-2006, 10:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:

Yes, so did the IJN think, so they did design the extremely agile, excellent climbing, reasoneably well armed aircraft. No armour though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And they all burned like torches. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Viper2005_
07-19-2006, 10:58 AM
Armour and parachutes have a lot in common.

Neither of them work as well as the layman thinks.

Both serve the same two purposes:

i) Increasing aircrew confidence in order to foster an aggressive attitude.

ii) Increasing aircrew survival rate.

There only part of a fighter aeroplane worth armouring is the cockpit, since aeroplanes are unaffected by morale, and are considerably easier to replace than pilots in any event.

(If you intend to operate within the small-arms envelope, it may be worth-while armouring a few critical systems; but then you're a target, not a fighter.)

BfHeFwMe
07-19-2006, 11:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:

LMAO. You and your oil cooler. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

What would you better have, a leaking oil cooler or a blown up head? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And your here for the historical interest, or hysterical? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

MrMojok
07-19-2006, 11:33 AM
I like where it seems to imply that the Germans lacked the intestinal fortitude for any sort of protracted engagement.

Scen
07-19-2006, 11:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
TO be honest ive always thought armouring fighters is a stupid idea....if someone can bring their guns onto you....you made a big mistake and your as good as dead. If i was an fw-190 pilot during the war...i wudve chucked out most of the armour, 2 of the cannons, and any other bumf that wasnt necesary.

A fighter should have the lightest air frame possible, coupled with the most powerfull engine available. All to often the germans knackered their designs by overbuilding them....Ju88 for example....great plane until they strengthend it for dive bombing and added tonnes of armour....speed is what allows you to survive not armour. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I think the Japan payed dearly for type of mentality.