PDA

View Full Version : Luft 46 issues



darkhorizon11
10-20-2006, 02:13 PM
I had a couple questions and concerns worth discussing about the new addon... I know its too late to probably make any fixes anyway but I still was looking for some community input...

1. Is the X-4M missile really that effective and powerful? I know its got some explosives on baord but jeessusss, I've been around some world war two bombers in my day (never a B-29 which is the biggest) its hard to imagine such a small little bastard taking out such as massive aircraft so easily... In the Ta-183s are sweeping them away like dust!

2. For the longest time I was looking forward to the Gotha, then in finally came in 4.02 and truthfully I was kind of dissappointed. It's pretty quick compared to contemporary props with some firepower, but going against other fighters it seems pretty vulnerable, I get the feeling it will be meat and potatoes for the new Russian jets. Anyways I wondering if theres any possiblity for it getting bombs? Its quick with a low radar signature I figure it would probably be an effective Jabo more than anything else, thats what Hitler had intended for it anyway I assume...

3. Whats the fastest of all these new planes? The Ta, the La-9, the MiG, or the new He-162?

jasonbirder
10-20-2006, 02:42 PM
the Ta-183s are sweeping them away like dust!

Thats it...the mystery 18th included Aircraft is a TARDIS and someone's come back in it to tell us the Ta-183's are UBER http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Fox_3
10-20-2006, 02:57 PM
X-4 missile specs here.

http://www.luft46.com/missile/x-4.html<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/Sapper646/sig_12.jpg

Friendly_flyer
10-20-2006, 03:14 PM
How are they to be used in game? Will the joystick suddenly switch to steering the missile and the plane run on autopilot? Will I have to have two joysticks (one for the missile and my old trusty Wingman Extreme for the plane)?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Fly friendly!

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a37/Friendly_flyer/WhirlwindforBoB-II.jpg

Visit No 79 Squadron vRAF (http://www.gazzamataz.com/79vRAF/)

Petter B??ckman
Norway

Arm_slinger
10-20-2006, 03:18 PM
I think they are to be controlled with the bombsite controls.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


Causing Havoc online as 242Sqn_Kye
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/Kyebromley/IL-2sig.jpg
www.242sqn.com (http://www.242sqn.com)

Scen
10-20-2006, 03:25 PM
Not to mention they seem to guide and have a better hit ratio that the Viet Nam era AIM-7 and AIM-9 missles... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

JG1Adler
10-20-2006, 03:41 PM
If what slinger says it true about using the bombsight controls for the misle then we would all need to buy a hotas joystick. I have an old saitek i got for $20 at walmart, i think ill use the hat switches to map the bombsight keys.

GerritJ9
10-20-2006, 04:10 PM
R4Ms with only 4 kg of explosives could take out a B-17 with a single hit, so no bomber would be safe from a 20 kg warhead.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

The KNIL is dead. Long live the KNIL!

darkhorizon11
10-20-2006, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by Scen:
Not to mention they seem to guide and have a better hit ratio that the Viet Nam era AIM-7 and AIM-9 missles... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

We'll there human guided... but they have an acoustic fuse too according the article posted, but yeah they seem quite deadly!

Either way they should be fun, and I won't think it will be as easy as expected since the pilot needs to line and focus his attention on the target aircraft for 4 to 5 seconds depending upon the range. Thats plenty of time for fighters to do their work!

Badsight-
10-20-2006, 09:25 PM
for a "one-hit-kill" , the RLM decided that 450g of explosive was the minimum

the 50mm cannon in the U4 Me-262 delivers a round that large

this rocket carries a 20kg round , so its not fantasy to think of it as a one-hit killer

in the video they do look really effective . they were said to be too much work to operate for a lone pilot - in FB tho we dont have the workload the real pilots did . . . . .<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/1741/shindendrawflight66os.jpg

VW-IceFire
10-20-2006, 09:58 PM
Those guided rockets did look pretty effective in the video. I understand they will be human controlled....I wonder about the AI.

I did notice however that the one B-29 had 3 or 4 fired at it and only the last one hit.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/icefire-tempestv.jpg
Find my missions at Flying Legends (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/downloads.php?cat_id=19) and Mission4Today.com (http://www.mission4today.com).

Gibbage1
10-21-2006, 12:18 AM
This is my guess. For users with HOTAS, the controles will be set up on the 2nd HAT switch. Very simple yet effective. Up, down, left, right. Or users with TIR can set there single HAT for the controle. For people without, then the keyboard. Oleg has ALWAYS been a big supporter of HOTAS and there are many sticks out there. My X-52 will work just fine.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/xb35.jpg

Vo101_Isegrim AkA Kurfurst__ "though the Northrop fantasy (B-35)
bomber you want to add to Il-2 never even got to the
prototype stage, while the Gotha did."

TX-Gunslinger
10-21-2006, 02:12 AM
Interesting question.

To amplify the facts Badsight posted, consider this:

In terms of weapon effectiveness, the 20 Kg warhead of the X-4 is only about half the size of the Wgfr 21 (40.8 Kg). Considering that Wgfr 21's were launched in pairs, that makes each attack worth 81.6 Kg, or about 4 times the warhead blast of the X-4

The Wgfr 21 caused great damage when carriers were allowed to launch. During initial use in the first Schweinfurt raid, a significant portion of the 60 plus US heavies were destroyed by this weapon. These weapons were manually aimed and timed - damage produced by indirect blast. Horrific weapon, but limited by:

1. Pilot judgement of closure rate between own aircraft and targets
2. Pilot judgement of range to target
3. Significant reduction in manueverablity and performance from drag produced by launching tubes.
4. Most reliable attacks conducted at low vice high closure rates. The greater the attacking platform speed, the faster the range closure to the bomber/formation, the smaller the launch window.

Now, even though these older weapons, per attack produced four times the blast damage - their inaccuracy and lack of midcourse and terminal guidance reduced effectiveness considerably.

Theoritically, the X-4's midcourse correction coupled with terminal acoustic fusing, should have allowed much improved weapon effectiveness, due to signficantly improved guidance, requiring a smaller warhead.

Of course, 20 Kg of HE is nothing to sneeze at.

However, I must point out that I am very skeptical that the acoustic fuze would have functioned reliably against all classes of Allied bombers under all conditions.

Changes in propeller RPM between different A/C at differing speeds changes the Dopper frequency or Fsub0. This little diaphram and needle are set to work in a very narrow frequency band, i.e. it can't function as a broadband device, nor can it function on multiple narrowband tonals.

The actual acoustic component that the fuse is reacting to is the propeller blade rate, or a harmonic of the blade rate, which is calculated as the prop shaft rpm times the number of blades on the propeller. As rpm increases the fundamental blade rate frequency increases, and vice-versa.

That means that the center frequency must be set prior to firing, by the physical construction of the "tapering needle".and it's dependent upon the rpm setting of the propeller which varies by:

a) Propeller pitch
b) Engine rpm

Now, any sound which vibrates that simple acoustic mechanism at a great enough rate, is going to actuate the warhead. That sound could just as easily be broadband as narrowband. In short, sufficient acoustic energy from any source at the tuned frequency would have vibrated the needle and set off the weapon after it's arming, as designed.

A second, significant issue for this missile is damage related. Imagine a .50 calibre round penetrating both coiled fuel tanks, while these missles are sitting under your wings. Missile cooks off, and launch platform burns, perhaps even exploding and blowing your wing off. Housing two liquid fuels which ignite upon contact with each other, in the same small housing is not damage tolerant.

I believe that the problems in the development of this weapon may have had much more to do with these issues than with aiming. I believe this may be why the pilot was given manual detonantion capability. So far I have not seen any photographs or video of this missile actually hitting anything in the air.

Since this is a fantasy scenario, I guess I'll just have to imagine that an alternate fusing was developed, or get very good at contact hits with the warhead.

A magnetic-anamoly based exploder would have been a much better idea, but would have been past the technology of the time, even for the Germans. The missile is just too small to house such a device.

Thanks for the topic, made me think through the details a little bit.

S~<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

https://webspace.utexas.edu/joem/TexasGunslingerSIG-d.jpg
International Online Competition League - http://www.gozr.net/iocl/index.php
"My engagement with the P-51 made me realize that, although the pilots of these machines enjoyed a formidable reputation, they were only human too." Feldwebel Willi Reschke, I/JG 302, July 1944

AKA_TAGERT
10-21-2006, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Those guided rockets did look pretty effective in the video.
Well that is to be expected I guess.. Would make for a kind of boaring video if they all missed. Same goes for WWII gun cam footage.. For every one that shows a guy getting hits there has to be hundreds if not thousands of gun cam reals that show nothing at all or total misses. Those types dont tend to make the news! Thus we never see them.. Thus we get a skewwed view of history thinking that ever shot was a hit that resulted in a wing comming off because that is the only footage we have ever seen.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Willey
10-21-2006, 10:43 AM
A guess regarding that video: Looks like the use the "quad dmg" mode with realistic weapons off. You can see it where the Ta nails a B-17's left wing - and the right one catches fire.
I' pretty sure that a well-placed X-4 can down such a plane - but it's IMHO too much that they'd always explode completely. I think it's because of the settings used in the video.

JG52Karaya-X
10-21-2006, 10:49 AM
Another factor to count in is that it seems they used ace AI planes in that video, meaning that their accuracy both with guns and rockets is unrealistically high - I dont think that the player will get nearly as proficient with the X4 missiles as the AI...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v639/Karaya/E3-1.gif (http://www.geocities.com/jg52thebutcherbirds/index1.html)
Kein andrer als ein J??ger sp??rt den Kampf und Sieg so konzentriert,
Drum sind wir gl??cklich, stolz und froh,
Der J??gerei ein Horrido!

F6_Ace
10-21-2006, 10:54 AM
Will the X-4M be picked up by 'F6 radar' ?

If so, the F6 aces will be safe from harm.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00004YL1M.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
10-21-2006, 11:20 AM
So.. if we have to guide that thing with a hat-key or keyboard it will make them pretty much useless to all users.. cept AI. It would be hard enough in a real 3D enviorment to visually judge the location of that thing relitive to a bomber let alone trying to do it in this 2D rendition of a 3D world. It would be cool if they would give us a sort of F2 external view of the thing while we are guiding it to the tgt.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

JG54_Lukas
10-21-2006, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
This is my guess. For users with HOTAS, the controles will be set up on the 2nd HAT switch. Very simple yet effective. Up, down, left, right. Or users with TIR can set there single HAT for the controle. For people without, then the keyboard. Oleg has ALWAYS been a big supporter of HOTAS and there are many sticks out there. My X-52 will work just fine.

At SimHQ, Luthier said the X-4 will be controlled by the keyboard inputs for the ailerons and elevators.

darkhorizon11
10-21-2006, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by JG54_Lukas:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
This is my guess. For users with HOTAS, the controles will be set up on the 2nd HAT switch. Very simple yet effective. Up, down, left, right. Or users with TIR can set there single HAT for the controle. For people without, then the keyboard. Oleg has ALWAYS been a big supporter of HOTAS and there are many sticks out there. My X-52 will work just fine.

At SimHQ, Luthier said the X-4 will be controlled by the keyboard inputs for the ailerons and elevators. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah he mentioned the numpad but you can assign the keys to whatever you want...

Thanks for the response on this I knew little of this weapon or how deadly it was...

Quick Scenario: Say a grouppe of 24 or so Ta-183s in the first operational squadron the Jv44 engaged a massive assualt from 800 B-17s, B-24s, and B-29s over Germany in the Spring of 1946. Each Ta is armed with the 4 X-4s and the standard lead armament. That means the Ta's are outnumbered about 33:1 (not including fighter cover) Yet have enough missile to take down up to 96 enemy bombers!

Even if only a third of those missles hit their marks... thats 24 fighters potentially dropping 32 aircraft in probably a matter of 10-15 minutes. Possibly inflicting from 5% to 10% of losses to a force of heavily armed aircraft purely from air to air missiles with no losses of their own from defensive bomber fire.

Of course the bombers would have fighter cover as well so chances are the attacks would be partially broken up. But given that the Ta's speed and rate of climb its doubtful even the American jets (nevermind if they were props) would be able to score more than a few lucky kills since the jets high ROC and critical mach speed would allow them to hit and run effectively.

I know 5-10% doesn't sound like much but this is in about 10-15 minutes of a 6-7 hour mission from a tiny group of enemy fighters. Nevermind if there were (and probably would be) repeated attacks along with flak.

For an Allied air raid a 5-10% loss on a mission is pretty heavy and unacceptable on one mission. Since if you do the math, 3 missions of losing 5-10% of 800 planes available is 120 to 240 planes.

Even the American industrial might can keep up with that kind of destruction of a equipment, nevermind the loss of aircrew.

Pretty ugly stuff this business of war.