PDA

View Full Version : bf110: pig or cow?



captainbong1970
07-11-2007, 07:24 AM
is it possible to use this as a fighter?

maybe in 1940 but in 1943 it is rubbish.

and as a bomber/ground attack it seems pretty terrible

compared to simmilar planes it is hopeless.

Beaufighter, P38, A20 all seem better.
I havent tried the Pe2/3 much but I'd imagine that would be better.

the bf110 seems to be in constant danger of falling out of the sky every time i try to strafe something. and no bombsight or dive brakes.

does anyone like this thing?

captainbong1970
07-11-2007, 07:24 AM
is it possible to use this as a fighter?

maybe in 1940 but in 1943 it is rubbish.

and as a bomber/ground attack it seems pretty terrible

compared to simmilar planes it is hopeless.

Beaufighter, P38, A20 all seem better.
I havent tried the Pe2/3 much but I'd imagine that would be better.

the bf110 seems to be in constant danger of falling out of the sky every time i try to strafe something. and no bombsight or dive brakes.

does anyone like this thing?

JG52Uther
07-11-2007, 07:30 AM
Its a very good plane.Stay fast.Don't turn.It is outclassed after '43,but I see lots of guys doing very well with it.If anything gets in front of it,then watch out!

Deadmeat313
07-11-2007, 07:33 AM
All I can say is that I'm hopeless in it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif


T.

Scorpion.233
07-11-2007, 07:33 AM
I think the 110 is one of the best planes for ground attack and a very decent fighter in early war scenarios. Try this campaign.

http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads&file=details&id=1091

Low_Flyer_MkVb
07-11-2007, 07:35 AM
For fantastic manouvreable twin-engined cannon-armed bomb dropping goodness you ought to try the Westland Whirlwi...oh, never mind.

The Pe's are fun. Tried the Mossie yet?

FE_pilot
07-11-2007, 07:35 AM
The BF-110 was never meant to be a mud mover. It was supposed to be an heavy fighter. Once they realized that it could not turn with modern fighters, it was given other roles.

The best role for this plane is bomber interceptor.

As a mud mover, well plainly it sucks, compared to some other planes in its category.

Don't expect the pe-2 to do any better.

stalkervision
07-11-2007, 07:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Deadmeat313:
All I can say is that I'm hopeless in it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif


T. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


High speed B & Z and use vertical manauvering to turn.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Ernst_Rohr
07-11-2007, 07:40 AM
The 110 is a pretty good bird if flown to its strengths.

As a ground attack bird, its incredibly hard hitting, depending on your load out. I have had a lot of success in the ground attack role loaded out with the 37mm cannon.

It also makes a good early war B&Z bird, it dives well, its tough, and fairly fast.

The 110 is big, and heavy, and doenst accelerate very well, so sustained turning will bleed off energy and put you in a disadvantage quickly vs single engine planes. So, the secret is, stay fast and dont make tight turns. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Zoom2136
07-11-2007, 07:44 AM
The 110 is very stable and you can lobbe 108 from far far away...

With its overmoddeled gunner its suicide to follow it in a hard (slow) climb...

Just hit it from low 6 (away from its twin 20mm rear gun (well I think they are 20mm) or when he is in a tight turn...

I hope BoB fixe the alway on target gunner... (even when a player is operating the rear gun he should have to deal with the G forces and the gun recoil) ... It p***** me of when I get PK by a 110 that thumbling to the earth...

Vipez-
07-11-2007, 07:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FE_pilot:
The BF-110 was never meant to be a mud mover. It was supposed to be an heavy fighter. Once they realized that it could not turn with modern fighters, it was given other roles.

The best role for this plane is bomber interceptor.

As a mud mover, well plainly it sucks, compared to some other planes in its category.

Don't expect the pe-2 to do any better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well first define turning. IRL BF110C had quite impressive turn rate of about 20 seconds for such a big fighter, however it's roll rate is what made it a bad fighter in close combat.. However, knowing your weaknesses BF110 was still a fighter to be taken seriously. IMHO What gave it such bad reputation during BOB was bad tactics (staying close to bombers really didn't work out).

SeaFireLIV
07-11-2007, 07:56 AM
Was online in a co op the other day and we got involved with numerous 110s and 109s. By the end of it all, I was alone with 2 110s and a 109. I was in a cutwing spitfire.

I was being B & Z by the 110s and could see the 109 G2 coming at me. Whever a 110 got on my 6 I was quick to evade, I knew what was there! Never gave him a chance to get a bead on me. There was low cloud nearby and I dove into it. Came out high and caught one 110 on his 6 - he was like a pregant whale. maybe this was due to the fact he was also trying to use the rear gun. Of course I was aware of this and stayed low and to the sides, hitting him - he crashed.

The 110 had dissappeared. After that it was just a hard fight with the G2 which finally gave up.

110s are not that tough to deal with as long as you have a good SA and a bit of cloud. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Daiichidoku
07-11-2007, 08:12 AM
some twins are more like cows...some are more like pigs...


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/38pork.jpg

JG53Frankyboy
07-11-2007, 08:30 AM
i have the experience that fights online between Bf110G-2 (no MK108s !) and Beaufighter/Pe-3bis are balanced and a lot of fun.

in the gone VOW2 COOP based online war we had lot of MTO missions 110vsBeau (the Pe were too late released http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif ) - the outcome realy depended on the pilots , as a said, was fun and something different http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


in history the Bf110, espacially the earlier versions, were very important planes 1941 and 1942 in the groundattack role at the eastern front - never much around (4-6 groups only), but had a huge impact.

Bewolf
07-11-2007, 08:52 AM
Actually, in earlier versions of the game, I considered the 110 a very potent fighter. Though it back then still had the roll rate problem, it was still fast and had good turn. Nowadays though it feels kinda underpowered. I dunno which patch changed that, and though it is still fast and turns well, it also feels extremly "heavy" now, which does not make it a nice ride anymore. Definitely not a fighter anymore as it felt like before. I have no idea though which feeling is/was more realistic.

leitmotiv
07-11-2007, 08:53 AM
1940: Greased pig. 1944 in daylight: Dead meat.

Xiolablu3
07-11-2007, 09:23 AM
I like the Bf110.

One of the Ukded2 maps has just

Me110/Ju88 vs Beaufighter/A20

I prefer the Me110 to anything else on that map.

Its a great light bomber, very fast. Also with t eh BK37mm cannon its awesome vs tanks if you can get fighter cover.

Remember it camer into its own as a very good night fighter, probbaly the best until the Mosquito arrived.

Xiolablu3
07-11-2007, 09:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
some twins are more like cows...some are more like pigs...


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/38pork.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats just cr*p.
The P38 is by far the best twin in the game.

COmpare the P38 to the Mosquito, which the USAAF very nearly bought in 1944 for its superb performance, yet dumped the P38?!?!

Yet in the game the P38 walks all over the MOsquito, and YOU are complaining...

Daiichidoku
07-11-2007, 10:07 AM
i wasnt comparing the 38 against any other twin

i only stated that the 38 was one of the twins that are porked

some are porked, some are cows, some are dogs

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif


'sides, being porked does not = lousy performance

porked = inaccuracies/undermodelling

the P11 is porked, it has lousy manuverability, repugnant climb, and its Vne is completely f**ked

if it was PERFECTLY modelled...it would not be porked, but still a crapplane

if a me163 Komet is 40 kph slower than it should be, its porked, while still enjoying a 100kph+ adv over most enemies and being a superplane

Abbuzze
07-11-2007, 10:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by captainbong1970:

Beaufighter, P38, A20 all seem better.
I havent tried the Pe2/3 much but I'd imagine that would be better.


does anyone like this thing? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A british unit in the desert tested a captured one againt a beaufighter. The 110 outturned it at all altitudes and was faster except for low alt.
Pity I don´t know the exact version of bouth planes.

TheBandit_76
07-11-2007, 10:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

Thats just cr*p.
The P38 is by far the best twin in the game.

COmpare the P38 to the Mosquito, which the USAAF very nearly bought in 1944 for its superb performance, yet dumped the P38?!?!

Yet in the game the P38 walks all over the MOsquito, and YOU are complaining... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope you don't expect anyone to take you seriously after this kind of statement. P38 was a fighter, Mossie.....was not.

Stew278
07-11-2007, 10:40 AM
I like flying the BF110 for ground attack in this game. I prefer it to the Beaufighter, Mossie, or Pe-2, but the P-38 is better in my opinion.

For air to air it doesn't seem so good because I am usually fighting smaller, faster opponents. If there were more missions intercepting enemy heavy bomber formations, its abilities would start to shine I think.

One thing I've noticed is that some of the larger twin engine planes (110 and Mosquito in particular) seem to have a glass jaw when it comes to their engines. The first hit from ground fire always seems to take out one of my engines.

FluffyDucks2
07-11-2007, 01:31 PM
The 110 is an EXCELLENT groundpounder in WarClouds servers, it is also DEADLY when working in teams and there are many,many Spit and Tempest pilots who have had very nasty surprises when the tried to tackle the 110s. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Nothing I like more than making Spits crumple like wet chapatis when I unleash my MK108s http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

If anyone doubts the 110...check out Oktoberfests stats on WarClouds he uses it as as a FIGHTER once hes "vapourised" his targets http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.war-clouds.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=2320

StellarRat
07-11-2007, 01:41 PM
The only way to kill a fighter with a 110 is to sneak up on it and shoot before it has time to manuever. If they see you coming it's pretty much hopeless. I guess your gunner might get lucky every once in a while, but I wouldn't count on it.

Xiolablu3
07-11-2007, 02:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

Thats just cr*p.
The P38 is by far the best twin in the game.

COmpare the P38 to the Mosquito, which the USAAF very nearly bought in 1944 for its superb performance, yet dumped the P38?!?!

Yet in the game the P38 walks all over the MOsquito, and YOU are complaining... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope you don't expect anyone to take you seriously after this kind of statement. P38 was a fighter, Mossie.....was not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The mosquito was a fighter-bomber, it was used as a fighter often, and seeing as the P38 could carry as much ordanance as the Mossie, whats the difference?

If the P38 could do everything it can in the game and the same with the Mossie, the USAAF would never even have considered the Mossie - they would have used the P38.

I am not saying its definitely the P38 thats overmodelled, it could be that the Mossie is undermodelled, or that we dont have a 1944 Mosquito - I'm not sure, but something seems off. It definitely seems that Limeys have much more cause to complain than Yanks do, the P38 is a great plane in the game, the Mossie is pretty bad.

1. Impossible to B&Z cos it falls apart
2. No chance versus fighters at all they can outrun and outturn it.
3.Incredibly poor roll rate at both low and high speeds, making it useless as a fighter.
4. Its so fragile that it only needs a light burst to destroy.

ANd THIS is the plane that terrorised Germany throughout the war?

LW pilots were awarded 2 kills for shooting down a Mosquito. The Mosquito inspired a German imitation, the Focke Wulf Ta 154 Moskito, which, like its namesake, was constructed of wood.


'The Mosquito inspired admiration from all quarters, including the Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, Hermann Göing. Göing was due to address a parade in Berlin in the morning of 30 January 1943, commemorating the 10th anniversary of the Nazis' seizure of power. The low level attack of three 105 Squadron Mosquito B Mk. IV on the main Berlin broadcasting station[2] put Reichsmarschall Göing off the air for more than an hour, as he was about to launch into a scheduled speech

'In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now! It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy.

The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that?' - Hermann Goering

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito


In the game I'd rather fly a Bf110.

mortoma
07-11-2007, 02:30 PM
It's ( Me-110 ) no good as a fighter except if you get lucky and it's hopelessly the worse ground attack mount imaginable!! For ground attack an A model FW is supremely better and even 109 is better as far a Jerry planes go. The best g'attack planes are Tempest, Mossie, P-47 and P-38. They rule the mud over all else!! I did not list them in order of preference.

But in any case, having tried many weapons and combos of weapons in the 110, I was never able to that well in it. I'd much rather just use bombs in a Ju-87 than an endless supply of ammo in a 110. But in the others I mentioned I can destroy dozens of ground targets in a single sorty.

Xiolablu3
07-11-2007, 02:54 PM
Just another note, apparantly the Mosquito was built in pure fighter versions :-

Prototype/PR.1 Prototype and first few photo-reconnaissance aircraft. Easily distinguishable by short engine nacelles. Two Rolls-Royce Merlin 21 engines with two speed, single stage superchargers and De Havilland hydromatic propellers.

F.II Fighter. Developed from prototype W4052. Four 20mm cannon and four.303in Browning machine guns. Rolls-Royce Merlin 21 and 23 engines. Two were built experimentally with a rotating dorsal turret equipped with four .303in machine guns. Some examples converted to PR.II.

T.III Trainer. As Mark II but with dual control and without armament. Rolls-Royce Merlin 21 and 23 engines

B.IV Unarmed bomber. Like the PR.1 but with longer engine nacelles. Rolls-Royce Merlin 21 and 23 engines. Capacity for four 500lb bombs (with shortened fins) in the fuselage in place of the four 250lb bombs in the original design. Later modified to carry a 4000lb bomb (blockbuster or "cookie") with a bulged bomb-bay. The first operational sorties were made in daylight to Cologne. The first bombing of Berlin by daylight was made by B.IV's on 30th January 1943.

PR.IV Unarmed photo-reconnaissance aircraft. Like the B.IV, but with provision for cameras instead of bombs. A variant of the PR.IV was supplied to BOAC as the prototype Mosquito courier-transport. 'Accommodation' for the two passengers was on their backs in the felt-padded bomb bay.

B.V Prototype developed from the B.IV with new 'standard wing' to take either two 50 gallon jettisonable wing tanks or two 500lb bombs. Rolls-Royce Merlin 23 engines. This aircraft was the basis of the Canadian B.VII.

FB.VI Fighter bomber. Developed from the NF.II with Rolls- Royce Merlin 22, 23 and 25 engines. Same armament as the NF.II plus two 50 gallon jettisonable wing tanks or two 500lb bombs (or extra tankage in the fuselage behind the cannon). Provision was made in 1944 to carry four 60lb rockets under each wing in place of the wing tanks or bombs for attacks on shipping. Two Mk.6 Mosquitos were modified for deck landing and converted to Sea Mosquitos by adding an arrestor hook, strengthening the rear fuselage and fitting four bladed propellers, becoming the basis for the Mk.33.

B.VII Bomber. First 25 Canadian built Mosquitos based on the B.V, but with Packard Merlin 31 engines driving Hamilton standard propellers.

PR.VIII Photo-reconnaissance aircraft. The first high altitude Mosquitos. The PR.VIII was converted from B.IV by fitting special Merlin 61 intercooled engines with two speed, two stage superchargers and adding provision for two 50 gallon jettisonable wing tanks. Only five were built.

B.IX Bomber. First high altitude unarmed bomber. Merlin 72 intercooled engines with two speed, two stage superchargers. Capacity for four 500lb bombs in the fuselage and two 500lb bombs on the wings or extra fuselage fuel tanks and 50 gallon jettisonable wing tanks. A few were converted to take one 4000lb bomb in the fuselage with two 50 gallon jettisonable wing tanks which were later in 1944 replaced by 100 gallon jettisonable wing tanks subject to a weight limitation of 25,200lb. A Pathfinder version was developed by the RAF.

PR.IX Photo-reconnaissance aircraft. Photo-reconnaissance version of the B.IX, used by the RAF and US 8th Air Force for meteorological reconnaissance over Europe before all major day and night bombing raids.

FB.X Proposed fighter bomber as FB.VI but with Merlin 67 engines. Never built.
Mk.XI Mark never used.

NF.XII Fighter. Four cannon fighter developed from the NF.II, but with the four machine guns and the A.I. Mk. 5 radar being replaced by centimetric A.I. Mk 8 radar in nose radome. Merlin 21 and 23 engines. The 'standard wing' was not fitted.

NF.XIII Fighter.Four cannon fighter developed from the FB.VI. The four machine guns in the nose replaced by A.I Mk 8 radar in 'bull' nose. Merlin 21 and 23 engines.

NF.XIV Proposed fighter as NF.XIII but with high altitude Merlin 67 engines. Never built.

NF.XV Fighter. Special high altitude fighter developed in only seven days from pressure cabin prototype PR.VIII with extended wing tips, reduced fuel tankage and four .303in machine guns in a blister under the fuselage. Only five built.

B.XVI Bomber. Pressure cabin development of the B.IX with Merlin 72, 73, 76 and 77 engines able to carry 3000lb bombs. All were converted in 1944 to take 4000lb bomb in the fuselage and two 50 gallon wing drop tanks or 100 gallon drop tanks with four 500lb bombs.

PR.XVI Photo-reconnaissance aircraft. Photo-reconnaissance version of the B.XVI. Three extra fuel tanks fitted in the bomb bay. In addition to the cameras carried in the fuselage, one F.52 camera could be carried in each drop tank.

NF.XVII Fighter. Fighter developed from and similar to the NF.XII with American A.I. Mk 10 radar.

FB.XVIII Fighter bomber. The 'Tsetse'. Developed from the FB.VI with the nose modified to take a six-pounder (57mm) anti-tank gun instead of the four 20mm cannon. The six-pounder could fire 25 shells in 20 seconds. Merlin 25 engines. Used mainly by Coastal Command against submarines and shipping.

NF.XIX Fighter. Developed from and similar to the NF.XIII, but with Merlin 25 engines and able to take either British or American radar sets. In 1948-49, 45 were overhauled and fitted with four blade airscrews and supplied to the Royal Swedish Air Force who designated the aircraft the J.30.

B.XX Bomber. Second batch of Canadian production. Similar to the B.VII but with Canadian-American equipment and Packard Merlin 31 or 33 engines. Forty fitted with cameras were supplied to the USAAF (who designated them the F.8) and were used for meteorological and operational reconnaissance.

FB.21 Fighter bomber. Canadian built fighter bomber corresponding to the FB.VI otherwise as the B.XX. Only three were built, one with Packard Merlin 33 engines, the other two with Packard Merlin 31 engines. Replaced by the FB.26.

T.22 Trainer. Canadian built unarmed dual control trainer based on the FB.21 with Packard Merlin 33 engines. Only six were built. Similar to the T.III.

B.23 Bomber. Canadian built high altitude bomber. A development of the B.XX to make use of Packard Merlin 69 engines. Not proceeded with because sufficient supplies of Packard Merlin 225 (single stage, supercharged) engines became available.

FB.24 Fighter bomber. Canadian built high altitude fighter bomber developed from the FB.21 with Packard Merlin 301 (two stage, supercharged) engines. Only one built.

B.25 Bomber. Canadian built bomber identical to the B.XX but with Packard Merlin 225 engines.

FB.26 Fighter bomber. Canadian built fighter bomber developed from the FB.VI but with Packard Merlin 225 engines and Canadian-American equipment.

T.27 Trainer. Canadian built trainer developed from the T.22 with Packard Merlin 225 engines.

FB.28 Model number allocated to Canada, not taken up.
B or FB.29 Dual control trainer development of FB.26, Packard Merlin 225 engines. All were conversions from FB.26's.

NF.30 Fighter. Developed from the NF.XIX with high altitude Merlin 72, 76 and 113 engines.
Mk.31 Reserved for a Packard Merlin engined night fighter variant which was never built.
PR.32 Photo-reconnaissance aircraft. Specially lightened version of the PR.XVI with Merlin 113 and 114 (two stage, supercharged) engines and extended wing tips for high altitude operation.

TF/TR.33 Fleet Air Arm version developed from the FB.VI for multi role operation. Merlin 25 engines, manually operated folding wings and pneumatic landing gear with smaller wheels.

PR.34 Photo-reconnaissance aircraft. Very long range development of the PR.XVI with Merlin 113 and 114 engines. This was the fastest version of the Mosquito managing 422mph in level flight.

PR.34a Modernised version of the PR.34 with a revised cockpit layout.

B.35 Bomber. Similar to the B.XVI except for Merlin 114 engines in early versions, Merlin 114A engines in later versions. 274 built, including 65 by Airspeed Ltd.

PR.35 Photo-reconnaissance aircraft. Ten converted from B.35's.

TT.35 Target tower. Modified from B.35.

NF.36 Fighter. High powered development of the NF.30 with Merlin 113 engines and American A.I. MK 10 radar. Armament consisted of four 20mm cannon.

TR/TF.37 Torpedo fighter/bomber. Similar to the T.33 with British ASV Mk. 13B radar fitted in a 'bull' nose.

NF.38 Fighter. Similar to the NF.36, fitted with British A.I. Mk 9 radar. Merlin 113, 114, 113A or 114A engines.

TT.39 Target tower. Target tower converted from B.XVI.

FB.40 Fighter. First Australian built Mosquitos, based on the FB.VI with Hamilton Standard or Australian built De Havilland hydromatic propellers. The first 100 aircraft were built with Packard Merlin 31 engines, thereafter, Packard Merlin 33 engines.

PR.40 Photo-reconnaissance aircraft. Australian built conversion of the FB.40. Packard Merlin 31 engines.

PR.41 Photo-reconnaissance aircraft. Australian built, similar to the PR.40 but with extra radio gear and Packard Merlin 69 (two stage, supercharged) engines.

FB.42 Fighter Bomber. Australian built adaptation of an FB.40 to take the Packard Merlin 69 engine. After testing, the project was dropped and the aircraft became the prototype for the PR.41.

T.43 Trainer. Australian built conversion of the FB.40 and almost identical except for the addition of dual controls and dual elevator trim tabs.


Possibly 'NF' means Night Fighter? But there is at least one 'F' version in there.

VW-IceFire
07-11-2007, 03:00 PM
Why is everyone saying the 110 is a bad ground attack platform (except for a few). Its an awesome ground attack aircraft...twin SC500 bombs or SD500 or AB500 is quite the load and then you can pack MG151/20s or that massive BK3.7 and you have yourself a very hard hitting aircraft against light and medium targets.

In 1945 I have seen it used well by utilizing the firepower and a bit of surprise to down opponents. Its not an agile aircraft but it can be flown to its strengths.

luftluuver
07-11-2007, 03:08 PM
Sorry Xio but 2 kills was not awarded for shooting down a Mossie. The LW also had a points system. 1 pt for a se a/c, 2 pts for a 2 engined a/c and 4 pts for a 4 engined a/c. Points went towards the awarding of medals.

Yes, NF means night fighter.

Xiolablu3
07-11-2007, 03:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Sorry Xio but 2 kills was not awarded for shooting down a Mossie. The LW also had a points system. 1 pt for a se a/c, 2 pts for a 2 engined a/c and 4 pts for a 4 engined a/c. Points went towards the awarding of medals.

Yes, NF means night fighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I just read this on a different forum after a search.

Apologies for any misinformation.

Its not that I am even trying to badmouth the P38, its just that I cannot see how why the USAAF would ever think of buying MOsquitos if they had a P38 like the one in the game, its a wonder fighter-bomber and very fast, and it really can compete with fighters after its dropped its load, the MOssie just sucks.

The in game P38 seems to do everything better than the Mosquito.

If anyone can give me some real answers to my queries I would be most greatful. Its probably just me being thick and missing something?

1: WHy would the RAF hate the P38 and love the Mosquito? Its not because its simply British vs USA, they loved the P40 and the P51.

2. Why did the USAAF want to buy Mossies in 1944 and not keep their P38's?

Possibly cos the ingame version is a 1942 version vs a 1944 P38?

Stuntie
07-11-2007, 03:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
...
2. No chance versus fighters at all they can outrun and outturn it.
.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A bit disconcerting for a plane that was built and hailed as a bomber that was too fast to catch.

Strangely none of the books I have ever mentioned it being slow as a slug on prozac...

Out turn yes, but out run???


Bf-110. A destroyer, not a fighter, as it's name 'Zeroster' impled so well.
Like the mossie it was more of a run in guns blazing, leg it and regroup kind of plane.

The fact that they sometimes formed defensive Luftberry circles in the BOB says it all.

SeaFireLIV
07-11-2007, 03:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FluffyDucks2:
The 110 is an EXCELLENT groundpounder in WarClouds servers, it is also DEADLY when working in teams and there are many,many Spit and Tempest pilots who have had very nasty surprises when the tried to tackle the 110s. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually this is very true. Last week I was on warclouds (I think it was) with a couple of teamm8s after a slightly uneventful flight. As we approached the airfield we saw flak and tracer and explosions. We got in closer and saw 2 110s (there may have been more) strafing and destroying the airfield together! It was quite a sight!

I did a B&Z on the right hand 110 badly damaging his right wing and engine, he went up in panic and down. the other 110 split in panic, as we licked our lips for the coming kills we were overwhelmed by at least 4 covering 109s\190s and got shot down. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

But I was impressed by the team work. In that regard 110s look impressive.

Aymar_Mauri
07-11-2007, 03:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:LW pilots were awarded 2 kills for shooting down a Mosquito. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm sorry but this is a myth. The German marking system did no attribute more than one kill per plane, no mater the type of plane or the number of engines they had.

The promotion system for higher ranks did take in to account points (NOT kills). Points were awarded according to the number of engines of enemy planes shot down and, in the western front, each plane gave more points comparatively to a similar type in the eastern front, due to the better training of RAF and USAAF pilots.

Aymar_Mauri
07-11-2007, 03:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Sorry Xio but 2 kills was not awarded for shooting down a Mossie. The LW also had a points system. 1 pt for a se a/c, 2 pts for a 2 engined a/c and 4 pts for a 4 engined a/c. Points went towards the awarding of medals. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Precisely.

Bremspropeller
07-11-2007, 03:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The fact that they sometimes formed defensive Luftberry circles in the BOB says it all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, just like Lufbery-circles formed by Tomahawks and Hurricanes in the desert http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


The 110's suckage in BoB was caused by radar and bad tactics.

Stew278
07-11-2007, 04:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

1: WHy would the RAF hate the P38 and love the Mosquito? Its not because its simply British vs USA, they loved the P40 and the P51.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I saw a documentary about the P-38 (the Discovery Channel's Wings I think it was) where they said the P-38's the US first sent to the RAF had the superchargers removed because they were deemed top secret. Without those the plane performed pretty bad. They said the RAF renamed them 'castrated lightnings' and canceled the rest of their order.

I have to agree that the Mossie in this game is disappointing. A later model would probably have better performance.

Xiolablu3
07-11-2007, 04:59 PM
The MOssie wouldnt be SO bad if it didnt fall apart at 600kph in a B&Z.

The MOssies greatest escape tactic was to go into a high speed power dive to escape at high speed, in the game this is castrated.

The Luftwaffe had trouble intercepting the Mosquito until 1944 with the Alcohol 109's, Jets and later FW190's. They could roam almost freely over Germany up until 1944. I guess part of this is the fact that they had bombed and were racing home before the Luftwaffe could get up to height to attack them, however they certainly were fast for a two engined plane. Fast enough for Germany to try and copy it.

In the game a 109F4 has little trouble to catch it, the FW190A4 has no real problem at all. You cannot go inot a power dive to escape the German plane because the MOssie falls apart. SO you are just a sitting duck.

I remember flying red to even up the teams on UKded2 once on the CHannel '42 map (not surprisingly everyone wants to go blue). Planeset is
SPitfire Vb/P40/Hurricane/Mossie vs 109F4/FW190A4 (there to represent the FW190A3) /Me110/Ju88

Now, reds usually get slaughtered on this map, the Fw190 walks all over reds best fighter, the Spitfire Vb, and the 109F4 is also superior. So I thought 'I'll be clever, I'll take a Mossie and climb up high and B&Z the German planes, usuing my speed to escape after attacking.

I climbed up high, got above a Fw190 and dived down to attack. My rudder and left elevator fell off in the first attack. Go figure....

Xiolablu3
07-11-2007, 05:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The fact that they sometimes formed defensive Luftberry circles in the BOB says it all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, just like Lufbery-circles formed by Tomahawks and Hurricanes in the desert http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


The 110's suckage in BoB was caused by radar and bad tactics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I htink it was partly misleading reports given to the German pilots by the High COmmand.

Just before the Battle of Britain they all saw a copy of a report which stated that the 109E was vastly superior to either the SPitfire or the Hurricane and only the SPitfire might 'get lucky' with the ME110.

The report stated that both the 109E and the 110 were far superior in fighting qualities to either the Spitfire, Hurricane of Curtis Hawk.

Some Luftwaffe pilots obviously believed this report and it cost them their lives.

R_Target
07-11-2007, 05:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stew278:
I saw a documentary about the P-38 (the Discovery Channel's Wings I think it was) where they said the P-38's the US first sent to the RAF had the superchargers removed because they were deemed top secret. Without those the plane performed pretty bad. They said the RAF renamed them 'castrated lightnings' and canceled the rest of their order.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My understanding is that the British (and the French) ordered their P-38's with no turbochargers and dual right-handed engines on purpose. However, after receiving what they ordered, they rejected them.

VMF-214_HaVoK
07-11-2007, 05:40 PM
The BF-110 is pure killer man! What settings you fly? It would be tough to be successful flying it as a fighter in arcade servers but in a FR server it can dish out some serious pain to allied fighters. I love the plane, one of my Axis favorites...be sure.

S!

leitmotiv
07-11-2007, 05:42 PM
About the only thing which could possibly drive me online would be to fly the 110C in BOB against all the red hot online Spitfire aces.

VMF-214_HaVoK
07-11-2007, 05:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Beaufighter, P38, A20 all seem better.
I havent tried the Pe2/3 much but I'd imagine that would be better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can not really compare the BF-110 to the P-38 as its not even in the same class in terms of being a fighter. The BF-110 is much more of a fighter then the Beaufighter because of the much better rear view and an added tail gunner for defense. It outclasses the A20, Pe-2, and Pe-3 with ease. If decide to try the Russian twin as a fighter be sure to fly the Pe-3Bis.

S!

VMF-214_HaVoK
07-11-2007, 05:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StellarRat:
The only way to kill a fighter with a 110 is to sneak up on it and shoot before it has time to manuever. If they see you coming it's pretty much hopeless. I guess your gunner might get lucky every once in a while, but I wouldn't count on it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Against what aircraft? If your not talking late 43-44 you would be surprised at what the 110 can do.

S!

Xiolablu3
07-11-2007, 06:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StellarRat:
The only way to kill a fighter with a 110 is to sneak up on it and shoot before it has time to manuever. If they see you coming it's pretty much hopeless. I guess your gunner might get lucky every once in a while, but I wouldn't count on it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Against what aircraft? If your not talking late 43-44 you would be surprised at what the 110 can do.

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know what you mean, I know a couple of Me110 Aces.

I dont think Levola visits these forums, or else he could offer a lot of tips on how to be successful in her.

I like her for ground attack with the 37mm cannon, or as a fast bomber.

Xiolablu3
07-11-2007, 06:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
About the only thing which could possibly drive me online would be to fly the 110C in BOB against all the red hot online Spitfire aces. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should SERIOUSLY take the plunge and get online.

Once you do it you will wonder why you didnt do it years ago, seriously.

DustyBarrels77
07-11-2007, 06:12 PM
does well against spits with 500-1000m alt advantage turns with them very well both medium and highspeeds but not low speed.

i find the rudder to be way out of wack like a bunch of ac in game but once trimmed to the center its fine. with default loadout or with mk108s its excellent, throw any other payload on it cripples the plane.

I love the 110, one of the best looking ac in game inside and out.

As for the others it cant compete with a good p38 pilot it flies more like the mossie and beaufighter which are pretty damn good as well.

a20 b25 etc are pos's especially without thier 5500lb payload capacity.. we got only the pto long range full fuel payloads 2500lb for missions that took many hours to get to. Med and north africa many used 5500lbs.

Then we got the betty which performs like the bf110 mossie and beaufighter pe2-3 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

pe2-3 vs bf110 is a excellent fight just like anything russian vs german extremely close in all catagories unlike japanese vs usn, brit vs german, german vs american, italians vs american... which is a german victory slaughter with a couple half descent pilots who know all aircraft well. even 190a4s and 109g6s g2s can slaughter the us n brit 44-45 ac with ease. Whats a great fight in this game is latewar japanese vs german, and latewar japanese vs russian... so close for either side which equals alot of fun even tho unhistorical.

Not to be so general russian vs german then ruskies win the low alt slow speed fight like spits do under 6000m because of the energy bleed junk. Then germans win the medium to high speed manueverability easy and 1 tap shot insta kill.

russian dms and german dms are very similiar.. stronger then any in game. then theres alot wrong with the 190s for example over russian ac which shouldnt be outperforming them above 6000m whih are in game.. fun game but way off is so many apects...

to me the joke ac are prettymuch the spit 190 109 yak la ki84 george zeke they win in catagories in which they shouldnt all you have to do is bnz highspeed and your winning the highspeed turn fight over a slower ac which should have the advatange in turn being slower but this game doesnt work that way since only a quarter of the ac get stick pressures medium to highspeed using trim on sliders.

that being said the bf110 i would call a raging bull over a pig or cow http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif with payload the bf110 is like the american ac and cr42 a plane full of concrete and 10% rudder induced stall... but at least its armed with 1 burst kill ability and can usually survive more then 2 passes of hits unlike the glassjaws of the game who dont survive 2-3 hits without being in pieces or insta exploded.

WOLFPLAYER2007
07-11-2007, 06:13 PM
They are good at crippling bomber formations, at least for me.

Xiolablu3
07-11-2007, 06:32 PM
DustyBarrels I disagree with almost everything you said.

Bremspropeller
07-11-2007, 06:48 PM
Xio, the 110 was designed as B&Z-fighter.
As such it relied on energy-advantage to reign supreme over the battlefield. That worked pretty well in Poland and during the early western campaign.
They would make use of their alt-advantage and kill an opponent during the first pass (thanks to their heavy armament).

Radar denied that tactic, however. Spits and Hurries would usually come in at same alts or even from above.
Furthermore (later-on that was), escort-fighters were ordere to stay close to the bombers, rendering them pretty much useless.


It's no surprise the 110s fell like lead-pumped ducks. Ironicly, the 110's pilots were regarded the elite-force among the Luftwaffe.
It's pretty stupid to waste one's man-power like that.

M_Gunz
07-11-2007, 07:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
If the P38 could do everything it can in the game and the same with the Mossie, the USAAF would never even have considered the Mossie - they would have used the P38. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Xio? If the USAAF was going to procure Mossies then was it as fighters?

I'm a bit hazy on the P-38's in Europe and the intercooler problems, if that's what it was.
IIRC the problem was fixed and the late model P-38's... did they run fighter operations in
later-war Europe or just ground support? I know that a lot of pilots did not trust them
but then a lot of pilots were not well trained in them to the extent really needed. I have
from Zeno's a film of P-38 from takeoff to landing where single engine operation was shown
and OMG the number of settings and re-settings needed is about twice as in IL2 just counting
from after wheels up. Those engines needed adjustment with every flight regime change and
then some. A very "workload" plane compared to game but I suspect that's true of them all
with one difference -- two engines is twice the extra, IRL you scan the guages like your
life depends on it. Oh.... wait.... uhhhhh.

Kurfurst__
07-12-2007, 03:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Ironicly, the 110's pilots were regarded the elite-force among the Luftwaffe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've always wondered if that was ever true, or just another favourite topos of the BoB-myth created by post-war historians to give the story another dramatic spin.

csThor
07-12-2007, 04:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Ironicly, the 110's pilots were regarded the elite-force among the Luftwaffe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've always wondered if that was ever true, or just another favourite topos of the BoB-myth created by post-war historians to give the story another dramatic spin. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is true. When the destroyer units were created in greater numbers in the second half of the 1930s a lot of single-engined fighter units had to give up some of their best pilots in favor of the destroyer arm. Additionally promising pilots were pre-selected as early as in the A/B schools. Effectively the fighter arm was robbed of a large number of skilled pilots in favor of Göing's personal favourites.

Kurfurst__
07-12-2007, 04:33 AM
Isn't that just a natural selection for the better pilots for more difficult tasks - flying a multiengine fighter planes takes alot more of skill due to complex handling of engines (see also : P-38)? I mean if I'd be the CO, I'd do the same, there's a more difficult plane type to be flown the same tough demands presented by SE fighters (quick reflexes etc.), so I'd probably allocate the best pilots in the class to that task, since they will cope with the demanding task the best. In that's sense the 'elite pilots' part is true.

Same selection between bomber and fighter pilots. Ones with good reflexes going to fighter schools, one with less good reflexes but perhaps good talents in navigation going to bomber schools. But does that make bomber pilots 'second rate'...?

It's the 'Göing's personal favourites' part I'd like to track down back to it's original source.

X_Ray_B-S
07-12-2007, 05:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I've always wondered if that was ever true, or just another favourite topos of the BoB-myth created by post-war historians to give the story another dramatic spin. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Kurfürst,

i think Adolf Galland is a good source for that question,

"Die Ersten und die Letzten", Page 56:

" Als dann die Stukaverbände aufgestellt wurden, erfuhr der Jagdfliegerbestand einen neuen personellen Aderlaß. Ab 1938 stellte Göing Zerstöerverbände auf, die, mit der zweimotorigen Me 110 ausgerüstet, größere Eindringtiefe, also länger Flugzeit besitzen und die "operative Jägerelite der Luftwaffe" werden sollten. Und abermals mußten die besten Flugzeugführer aus der Jagdwaffe abgegeben werden."

cu
X-Ray

Kurfurst__
07-12-2007, 06:00 AM
Thanks a lot, so the source is Galland's book... no myth at all then! Thanks. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Aymar_Mauri
07-12-2007, 06:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stew278:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

1: WHy would the RAF hate the P38 and love the Mosquito? Its not because its simply British vs USA, they loved the P40 and the P51.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>I saw a documentary about the P-38 (the Discovery Channel's Wings I think it was) where they said the P-38's the US first sent to the RAF had the superchargers removed because they were deemed top secret. Without those the plane performed pretty bad. They said the RAF renamed them 'castrated lightnings' and canceled the rest of their order. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not only the removal of the turbochargers, but they also were equipped with engines that rotated the propellers in the same direction, not counter-rotating. So, the torque effects and handling were far worse.

M_Gunz
07-12-2007, 06:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Same selection between bomber and fighter pilots. Ones with good reflexes going to fighter schools, one with less good reflexes but perhaps good talents in navigation going to bomber schools. But does that make bomber pilots 'second rate'...? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are qualifications of bomber pilots that many fighter pilots did not have. As pointed
out to me by a war veteran bomber crewman, after the war many pilots went after flying jobs
in different airlines. The fighter pilots mostly were not able to make the transition to
the big multis because the disciplines required. I better understood him after trying around
positions in the B-17II game -- just playing Navigator and trying to place the plane in the
right place and direction to make a good run is seriously a lot of work! In the piloting
there has to be more attention to engines and conditions, what it takes to run for long
periods carrying large loads efficiently is more what they were about.

OTOH the repetoire of tactics that bomber pilots need is rather small....

It's like trying to compare physicists to biologists. Both need to be intelligent though.

Manu-6S
07-12-2007, 07:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DustyBarrels77:
russian dms and german dms are very similiar.. stronger then any in game. then theres alot wrong with the 190s for example over russian ac which shouldnt be outperforming them above 6000m whih are in game.. fun game but way off is so many apects...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DustyBarrels77:
to me the joke ac are prettymuch the spit 190 109 yak la ki84 george zeke they win in catagories in which they shouldnt all you have to do is bnz highspeed and your winning the highspeed turn fight over a slower ac which should have the advatange in turn being slower but this game doesnt work that way since only a quarter of the ac get stick pressures medium to highspeed using trim on sliders.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

TheBandit_76
07-12-2007, 11:10 AM
Oh bag it, I'll just do the robotic reply of the blues:

What you talk about? I fly Bf110 on WARCLOUDS and I score 20 kills per flight. 55 kills if I take off, and I am not even trying bcuz I am on the phone with my girl.

(I just subbed in Bf110 for P51/P47/P38)

Xiolablu3
07-12-2007, 11:53 AM
Sorry to go offtopic to the MOssie again, but is the P38 vs Mossie question answered with the fact that the Mossie could incorporate all sorts of equipment where as the P38 could not?

Also the Mossie has an extra crew member who can utilise cameras, radars, any other equipment?

Looking at the P38 its missing that extra crew member and there doesnt look to be much space behind the pilot for extra 'stuff'.


Anyone got any other suggestions as to why the P38 wasnt preferred over the MOsquito as a 'multi-functional' plane?

JG53Frankyboy
07-12-2007, 12:00 PM
as a pure fighter, that has to face enemy fighters at daylight, i would choose everytime the P-38.

propably for all other kind of missions, i would choose a Mosquito...........

in reality , sure, not in game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG53Frankyboy
07-12-2007, 12:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
...................

Anyone got any other suggestions as to why the P38 wasnt preferred over the MOsquito as a 'multi-functional' plane? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you mean by the RAF , beside the bad performance the Lightning Mk.I had because of the engine changes ?
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p38_7.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher1/p38_7.html)

perhaps also , "buy british" ??
lot of wood was available.....

and as singleseat fighters, they had still "their" Spitfire http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

luftluuver
07-12-2007, 12:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
you mean by the RAF , beside the bad performance the Lightning Mk.I had because of the engine changes ?

perhaps also , "buy british" ??
lot of wood was available.....

and as singleseat fighters, they had still "their" Spitfire http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The British recieved all kinds of American a/c so the 'buy Brit' is not correct.

Xiolablu3
07-12-2007, 01:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
...................

Anyone got any other suggestions as to why the P38 wasnt preferred over the MOsquito as a 'multi-functional' plane? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you mean by the RAF , beside the bad performance the Lightning Mk.I had because of the engine changes ?
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p38_7.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher1/p38_7.html)

perhaps also , "buy british" ??
lot of wood was available.....

and as singleseat fighters, they had still "their" Spitfire http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


This isnt the reason because the USAAF also preffered the Mosquito, almost placing an order to buy lots in 1944 yet dumping the P38.

There are numerous reasons stated as to why the order was never completed, from teh fact that the Brits could not supply the full amount, and that it was thought jets would soon take over from props.

However as to the P38 vs MOssie argument, 'buy British does not work' The USAAF tried hard to get as many MOsquitos as they could and placed large orders.


Quote :-

'General Henry "Hap" Arnold, commander of the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF), witnessed a demonstration of the Mosquito on 20 April 1941 as a guest of Lord Beaverbrook. Geoffrey de Havilland JR was in prime form that day, screaming the machine low over the ground and performing sharp maneuvers with one engine feathered. Arnold was extremely impressed, and returned to the US with engineering drawings of the machine.

There matters more or less stood with the Yanks until late 1942, when a B.IV Mosquito was given to Colonel Elliot Roosevelt, the American President's son and commander of a USAAF reconnaissance squadron in North Africa, equipped with Lockheed F-4 Lightning reconnaissance aircraft. The B.IV was faster and had much longer range than the Lockheeds, and Elliot Roosevelt began to press for adopting the British machine.

In the meantime, Mosquitos were finally beginning to roll off the production lines at de Havilland Canada in the Toronto area, and in December 1942 Geoffrey de Havilland JR brought one of the first Canadian Mosquitos down to Washington DC. Hap Arnold ordered that airport traffic be held off for a half hour to allow de Havilland to put on an aerial demonstration over the city. Geoffrey De Havilland then left for California to perform more demonstrations. He went by train in order to see the country, and the Mosquito went separately. In Los Angeles he met with his cousin, actress Olivia de Havilland.

Hap Arnold now became very determined to get his hands on the Mossie, beginning with a offer to swap P-51 Mustangs for Mosquitos. The British turned him down. The Mosquito was increasingly seen as difficult to replace. Had Canada been producing Mosquitos in volume at the time, the Americans might have been able to get their hands on part of the production, but the Canadians were slow to ramp up, with only 90 Mosquitos built there in 1943. At least Arnold's persistent lobbying to get Mosquitos helped convince Bomber Command that they had something of value.

The Americans did manage to get their hands on a relatively small batch of Canadian aircraft. The US signed an agreement with the British government in October 1943 for 120 Canadian-built Mosquito bombers, but limited production meant that the US only got 5 B.VIIs and 35 B.XXs. They were converted to a reconnaissance configuration with US-built cameras, redesignated "F.8", and sent to the UK for service with the USAAF Eighth Air Force.

The F.8's camera suite was minimal and the single-stage Merlins really didn't provide the performance the USAAF wanted, and so the F.8s were eventually replaced by PR.XVIs. The Americans obtained over a hundred PR.XVIs, along with a handful of T.IIIs for conversion or continuance training.

***AMERICAN PILOTS CONVERTING FROM THEIR LOCKHEED F4 and F5 LIGHTINGS, which had "handed" propellers, had to be trained to deal with the Mosquito's tendency to roll against the rotation of its propellers on takeoff. There was a worse problem in that over-anxious fighter pilots tended to mistake Mosquitos for Messerschmitt Me-410s, which in fact did have a similar configuration, and so the USAAF gave their PR.XVIs red-painted tails as a recognition aid.

The majority of the Yank PR.XVIs were used in their intended photoreconnaissance role, but a good number of them were used for weather reconnaissance, and they were also modified for special tasks. Some were fitted with US-built "H2X" targeting radar, the American three-centimeter counterpart to the British ten-centimeter H2S, mounted in the nose radome. As American crews referred to H2X as "Mickey" for some forgotten reason, these were known as "Mickey Ships". Some USAAF Mosquitos were fitted out for dispensing chaff, and seven were fitted with communications gear to support Allied agents and resistance forces in Occupied Europe.

USAAF Mosquitos were also fitted to use the LORAN navigation system, the American answer to Gee, and as LORAN was something of an Allied standard later in the war it is plausible that some RAF Mosquitos had LORAN receivers as well.'

http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avmoss2.html


** 'Pilots also learned they could shake the FW.190 by going into a shallow dive and performing a corkscrew maneuver, since the Focke Wulf's controls tended "freeze up" at high speeds more quickly than those of the Mosquito. ' - If you did this in game at this speed, your plane would fall apart.

**'A lightly-loaded Mosquito performed so well even with an engine out that pilots said DH had designed it as a single-engine aircraft, and added a second engine for good luck....... later in the war an incautious Yank pilot at the controls of a Martin B-26 Marauder, itself regarded as a fairly hot twin-engine aircraft, once challenged a Mosquito pilot to a race. The Mosquito left the B-26 in the dust, flying past inverted with one prop feathered.'

JG53Frankyboy
07-12-2007, 02:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
................
This isnt the reason because the USAAF also preffered the Mosquito, almost placing an order to buy lots in 1944 yet dumping the P38.

......................' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

do you think the USAAF's 9.AF in Europe would have been a Mosquito force in 1944, if enough of these planes would have been available, instead of P-38s and P-47s ?
or all these long range fightermissions in the PTO (beside the humid air there wasnt the best for the wooden fuselage of the Mossie IIRC)would have been flown with Mossies, instead of P-38s ?

just wondering............
fore sure, the Mossie was far superiour over the F-4/-5s as recon !

Xiolablu3
07-12-2007, 02:17 PM
I dont know mate, I was hoping to get some of your opinions in order to thrash out the truth http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I am 99% sure 'own brand snobbery' is nothing to do with it.

When the Brits/CAnadians loved a Yank piece of equipment, they loved it and made no secret of it.

They loved the P40, P51, B26, Tommy Gun, .50 cal, Martlett/Wildcat, Sherman, Corsair, numerous Field Guns etc etc etc and made sure everyone knew it.

faustnik
07-12-2007, 02:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
The British recieved all kinds of American a/c so the 'buy Brit' is not correct. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've seen lend-lease figures from the US to UK before. What interests me more are the "reverse lend lease", UK to US, types and figures. Are those available on the web?

faustnik
07-12-2007, 02:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

When the Brits/CAnadians loved a Yank piece of equipment, they loved it and made no secret of it.

<span class="ev_code_RED">Sherman</span>

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The British did very well with all types of US made equipment.

http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...le=viewtopic&t=14409 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=14409)

MB_Avro_UK
07-12-2007, 02:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Same selection between bomber and fighter pilots. Ones with good reflexes going to fighter schools, one with less good reflexes but perhaps good talents in navigation going to bomber schools. But does that make bomber pilots 'second rate'...? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are qualifications of bomber pilots that many fighter pilots did not have. As pointed
out to me by a war veteran bomber crewman, after the war many pilots went after flying jobs
in different airlines. The fighter pilots mostly were not able to make the transition to
the big multis because the disciplines required. I better understood him after trying around
positions in the B-17II game -- just playing Navigator and trying to place the plane in the
right place and direction to make a good run is seriously a lot of work! In the piloting
there has to be more attention to engines and conditions, what it takes to run for long
periods carrying large loads efficiently is more what they were about.

OTOH the repetoire of tactics that bomber pilots need is rather small....

It's like trying to compare physicists to biologists. Both need to be intelligent though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, but I don't agree.

After WW2, Airlines selected pilots as to their TOTAL flying hours during WW2. Pilots from Transport and Coastal Command in the RAF were selected as Airline pilots as they had the largest amount of flying hours.

Fighter pilots of course had far fewer hours and were not considered for selection http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif.

This is a fact from family experience.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Xiolablu3
07-12-2007, 02:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

When the Brits/CAnadians loved a Yank piece of equipment, they loved it and made no secret of it.

<span class="ev_code_RED">Sherman</span>

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The British did very well with all types of US made equipment.

http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...le=viewtopic&t=14409 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=14409) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I finally registered again, Hurrah http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

MB_Avro_UK
07-12-2007, 02:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
some twins are more like cows...some are more like pigs...


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/38pork.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats just cr*p.
The P38 is by far the best twin in the game.

COmpare the P38 to the Mosquito, which the USAAF very nearly bought in 1944 for its superb performance, yet dumped the P38?!?!

Yet in the game the P38 walks all over the MOsquito, and YOU are complaining... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

??????

"The P38 walks all over the Mosquito...." (Quote).

What are you talking about? This is one of the worst opinions that I have seen on this site http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

1. The Mosquito carries the same bombload as a B-17 Flying Fortress. Does the P-38 have this capability?

2. The Mosquito in this sim is the 1942 version and nowhere near the capability of the 1944 marks.

3. The US wanted this aircraft because of it's performance. The US (as history shows) do not invest in foreign aircraft unless they are at least as good or better than home grown alternatives.

Google RAF Canberra,Harrier,Spitfire and Mosquito.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Xiolablu3
07-12-2007, 02:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
some twins are more like cows...some are more like pigs...


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/38pork.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats just cr*p.
The P38 is by far the best twin in the game.

COmpare the P38 to the Mosquito, which the USAAF very nearly bought in 1944 for its superb performance, yet dumped the P38?!?!

Yet in the game the P38 walks all over the MOsquito, and YOU are complaining... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

??????

"The P38 walks all over the Mosquito...." (Quote).

What are you talking about? This is one of the worst opinions that I have seen on this site http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

1. The Mosquito carries the same bombload as a B-17 Flying Fortress. Does the P-38 have this capability?

2. The Mosquito in this sim is the 1942 version and nowhere near the capability of the 1944 marks.

3. The US wanted this aircraft because of it's performance. The US (as history shows) do not invest in foreign aircraft unless they are at least as good or better than home grown alternatives.

Google RAF Canberra,Harrier,Spitfire and Mosquito.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif


Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



You missed off the crucial part of what I said..

"The P38 walks all over the Mosquito....IN THE GAME" (Quote).

Do you disagree?

I think that we have the same opinion and that you have misunderstood my point, Avro.

DKoor
07-13-2007, 04:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by captainbong1970:
is it possible to use this as a fighter? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes take a look at this link for clarification Oktorberfest 110 stat at WarClouds (http://www.war-clouds.com/modules.php?name=TARGET&theatre=WF&op=playerstats&pilotid=5689)

Kurfurst__
07-13-2007, 05:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:

"The P38 walks all over the Mosquito...." (Quote).

What are you talking about? This is one of the worst opinions that I have seen on this site http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

1. The Mosquito carries the same bombload as a B-17 Flying Fortress. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since when?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Does the P-38 have this capability? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, because neither has the Mosquito. Besides, early Mosquitos carried 1000 lbs, later ones commonly carried a mere 2000 lbs, and some of the late, unarmed bombers with bulged bomb bay could carry a single 4000 lbs 'cookie' bomb, but that's sort of a special case. Similiar 4000 lbs - special - bombload was carried by the P-38, and even the FW 190.

The B-17G carried far more than that. JB's site gives 17 000 lbs or so for short range, but I am not certain about the figure's validity. Anyone has a specs sheet for the B-17..?

The most common Mosquitos of all, B IV and the FB Mk VI carried 2000 lbs. That's the same as the 110. It's was called a light bomber for some reason.

leitmotiv
07-13-2007, 05:22 AM
Not a pig but a shoat.

M_Gunz
07-13-2007, 12:16 PM
I can think of one prop twin we have that's a total big-shark type fighter.. Do335.
Were there any previous nose and tail props that ever flew?

berg417448
07-13-2007, 12:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:

Were there any previous nose and tail props that ever flew? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is one:

http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/sam-13.html

stalkervision
07-13-2007, 12:35 PM
wish this was included in "1946"

http://www.electric-image.co.uk/ukairshow/Legends05/Tigercat-001.jpg

FluffyDucks2
07-13-2007, 12:41 PM
Tigercat..a very beautiful aircraft http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

leitmotiv
07-13-2007, 01:17 PM
I wish 46 had had the Bearcat and Tigercat, but oh bother.

Main thing is that BOB with have a 6 DOF 110C which ought to be a real kick to use against all the Spitfire dilberts. Let's form a ZG now!

Low_Flyer_MkVb
07-13-2007, 01:23 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n47/LFMkVb/fa_18181s.jpg

"No better proof of the Whirlwind's quality can be given than the fact that in the intense combat conditions of Northern Europe, a squadron flew the same fighter mark (not fighter type, the same airframes!) for three years. When No. 263 Squadron received its first Whirlwind, the newest Spitfire in service was the Mk IA; by the time it gave them up, the Mk XIV was a month away from entering service. If the Whirlwind had been a "bad" aircraft, it never would have served with Fighter Command for that length of time. A second Whirlwind squadron, No. 137, flew the type from September 1941 until June 1943."

ploughman
07-13-2007, 01:33 PM
Seksi yon Whirlwind.

Took me a moment, looking at the Tigercat, to remember the Whirly had in-line engines.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
07-13-2007, 01:45 PM
Twin Peregrines. Faster than single Merlins at low alt. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Go on chaps, you know you want one. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

leitmotiv
07-13-2007, 02:36 PM
Hopefully it will come from the main office or an affilate for BOB. After using the FS9 one, I'm ready. Beautiful airplane.

TheBandit_76
07-13-2007, 02:38 PM
This would seem to be very ON topic.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Bf110s in action (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-7geGhY0jY&NR=1)

Saburo_0
07-13-2007, 03:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Sorry to go offtopic to the MOssie again, but is the P38 vs Mossie question answered with the fact that the Mossie could incorporate all sorts of equipment where as the P38 could not?

Also the Mossie has an extra crew member who can utilise cameras, radars, any other equipment?

Looking at the P38 its missing that extra crew member and there doesnt look to be much space behind the pilot for extra 'stuff'.


Anyone got any other suggestions as to why the P38 wasnt preferred over the MOsquito as a 'multi-functional' plane? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC They wanted the Mossies for long range photo recon work. Once photo recce p-38s became available the US didn't need the Mossies so badly and the Brits couldn't get enough of them.

luftluuver
07-13-2007, 05:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Saburo_0:
IIRC They wanted the Mossies for long range photo recon work. Once photo recce p-38s became available the US didn't need the Mossies so badly and the Brits couldn't get enough of them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The Americans still acquired quite a few** and from what I have read preferred them over the F-4/5.

** an agreement was reached for 120 total of which some 90 were from Canadian production

Old_Canuck
07-13-2007, 06:15 PM
A couple of nights ago on Warclouds, I just happened to be right behind a 110 flown by Oktoberfest while he downed three "Spitties" in quick succession. Last night he shredded one with a head on deflection shot. Seems like a deadly platform with the right stick hand. Personally, I'm conducting an experiment to determine how many different ways I can be shot down while flying the 110. The data is piling up.

leitmotiv
07-13-2007, 07:10 PM
You are a sardonic devil, Old Canuck!

I don't think I'd like to run into this Oktoberfest guy in anything.

Brain32
07-14-2007, 02:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I don't think I'd like to run into this Oktoberfest guy in anything. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are correct. It's not about what he flies, it's about the way he flies and his organization capatibilities. He even formed a BF110 squadron and now it's not unusual to meet 6 110's flying together and on TS, cooperating. And that's not even all, a nice pack of pure fighters are usually with them including me with my FW190/ME109.
So now when you see a 110 on WC think twice and look around twice more before you go for the "easy" kill http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

leitmotiv
07-14-2007, 02:53 AM
That's great!

Polyperhon
07-14-2007, 04:20 AM
In this month issue of the AEROPLANE magazine, captain Eric M. Brown writes about his experience with captured Bf 110s.It is really intersting and I would say impressive to read.It reflects what we experience in the sim.
------------------------------------------------
It is shown that after 1942 the Bf 110's development was completely abandoned in favor of other planes ,something that history proved wrong,since it stayed in production until the end of the war.It 's really strange why nobody thought of how this massive tailwheel should be hidden or to create a flap-cooler arrangment similar to Bf 109F/G/K etc. I think that the gunner was not much useful too,it made sense more as a rear observer of your tail than a gunner.This massive 3-crew canopy takes a lot of space,if they would gave produced a single-seat Bf 110, it would have made much mre sense,much lighter, with later -AM, -ASM engines propably wouldn't had been an easy kill for late-war allied fighters and a terror for allied bombers.

Kurfurst__
07-14-2007, 04:34 AM
All this was considered (engines etc, AS engines were considered for example), and the 110 production was re-started and kept in production to fill up the numbers due to the delays in it's replacment 210/410 production (which supposed to be around in 1941). The 410 of course was a much more advanced plane, a more sensible thing than a patched up the 110..

OTOH, consider that the 110's main job after 1942 was hunting night bombers and interdiction on the EF, and it was still perfectly well suited to carry out these tasks. In a clean form, the 110G could do about 600 kph, not that bad at all, quite close to the commonlike BIV and FB VI mosquitos in fact.

MEGILE
07-14-2007, 04:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:



Besides, early Mosquitos carried 1000 lbs, later ones commonly carried a mere 2000 lbs, and some of the late, unarmed bombers with bulged bomb bay could carry a single 4000 lbs 'cookie' bomb, but that's sort of a special case. Similiar 4000 lbs - special - bombload was carried by the P-38, and even the FW 190.

The B-17G carried far more than that. JB's site gives 17 000 lbs or so for short range, but I am not certain about the figure's validity. Anyone has a specs sheet for the B-17..?

The most common Mosquitos of all, B IV and the FB Mk VI carried 2000 lbs. That's the same as the 110. It's was called a light bomber for some reason. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Mosquito could carry the same load considerably faster and Higher than the 110.
Further Neither the standard 110, 190 or P-38 had bombsights.

Quite naturally the B-17 could carry significantly larger loads, because if you examine the large wings you will notice 4 big round things bolted on them.

But I'm sure none of this matters to yourself, as you move the goal posts, and look to criticise British capabilities, even if that means praising the Americans.

Polyperhon
07-14-2007, 04:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
All this was considered (engines etc, AS engines were considered for example), and the 110 production was re-started and kept in production to fill up the numbers due to the delays in it's replacment 210/410 production (which supposed to be around in 1941). The 410 of course was a much more advanced plane, a more sensible thing than a patched up the 110... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not sure that in reality this was the case...A signle seat Bf 110 should have been light enough to more than justify the loss of a gunner.If they wanted to work further, all this free space behind the pilot could be used for fuel tanks.The wing root was fat enough to fit 2 mk108 in each side, so that could mean 6 mk108s in total...Breaking up B-17s in pieces as fast as possible was essential for survival.Of course you can argue that a similar single seat Me410 should have done the same job much better.The thing is, we have almost all twins apart from the Me410 and this is a real gap.I hope we gonna get it sooner or later.In general I cannot understand how the germans were thinking with their twins.We read texts that "explain" why this and the other, but still seems that RLM was incredebly rigid and pilots reports were not taken into account.How it was possible not to put into production a plane like the Fw 187?

Xiolablu3
07-14-2007, 05:16 AM
I dont recall nuisance raids by Me110's ever being a problem for Britian.

Lone Me110's were far too vulnerable to fighters to be used in the way the Mosquito was in daylight.

The Mossie was constantly used to Harrass the Gestapo with pinpoint raids on their headquarters and on pinpoint targets like powerstations and V1 sites. They constantly turned up at times 'inconvienient' for the Nazi leadership such as Nazi Party Rallies and Goerings speeches, causing air raid sirens and disrupting procedings.

It is often said that the Mossie fought its own 'private war' against the Gestapo. Constantly hitting their headquarters and escaping before they could be caught.

[In 1944] - '2TAF Mosquitos focused on German targets sited in cities in Occupied Europe , where the RAF was understandably reluctant to perform imprecise high altitude attacks. Power stations were a favored target, but the FB.VIs took on other targets as well.

On 18 February 1944, 18 Mosquitos from Number 21, 464, and 481 Squadrons attacked the prison at Amiens, France, under OPERATION JERICHO. The objective was to "tumble down the walls" of the prison to allow condemned French Resistance fighters being held there to escape. The attack was successful, with about 250 prisoners managing to escape. However, about a hundred prisoners were killed in the raid, and a good number of those who escaped were quickly recaptured. The raid was led by RAF Group Captain Charles Pickard, whose Mosquito was shot down by FW-190s during the action. He and his navigator are now at rest under a memorial in Amiens.

Now the Mosquitos turned their attention back to the Gestapo, engaging in what almost became a private war. On 11 April 1944, six FB.VIs of Number 613 Squadron struck Gestapo headquarters in The Hague, the Netherlands, destroying German records on the Dutch Resistance. Two bombs were tossed into the front door of the building.

On 31 October 1944, 18 FB.VIs hit a Gestapo office building at Aarhus University in Denmark. They came in so low that one Mosquito went back home with a piece of masonry in the fuselage. On 21 March 1945, Mosquitos hit Gestapo headquarters in the middle of Copenhagen. The mission was successful except that the strike leader's Mosquito hit a bridge and slammed into an elementary school, with many civilian casualties.

In the meantime, Mosquito fighter-bombers were operating in support of the landings in France, striking German communications. The FB.VIs were also active in attacks on the launch sites for V-1 flying bombs in Northern France. The V-1s had been photographed at Peenemunde, and then on 28 November 1943 a PR Mosquito spotted the first French launch site. Both the RAF and the US Army Air Forces (USAAF) began to bomb the sites on 5 December 1943.

The campaign lasted into the fall of 1944, and statistics compiled later showed that the Mosquito destroyed one site for each 36.4 tonnes (40 tons) of bombs dropped, as opposed to 150 tonnes (165 tons) for USAAF Boeing B-17 Flying Fortresses, 158 tonnes (182 tons) for Martin B-26 Marauders, and 200 tonnes (219 tons) for North American B-25 Mitchells.'

Bomb load is irrelevant if you can hit the target with pinpoint accuarcy.

Xiolablu3
07-14-2007, 05:39 AM
* From Joseph Goebbels, diary -

* This evening's Mosquito raid was particularly disastrous for me because our Ministry was hit. The whole lovely building on the Wilhelmstrasse was totally destroyed by a bomb. The throne-room, the Blue Gallery and my newly rebuilt theatre hall are nothing but a heap of ruins. I drove straight to the Ministry to see the devastation for myself. One's heart aches to see so unique a product of the architect's art, such as this building was, totally flattened in a second. What trouble we have taken to reconstruct the theatre hall, the throne-room and the Blue Gallery in the old style! With what care have we chosen every fresco on the walls and every piece of furniture!

And now it has all been given over to destruction. In addition fire has now broken out in the ruins, bringing with it an even greater risk since 500 bazooka missiles are stored underneath the burning wreckage. I do my utmost to get the fire brigade to the scene as quickly and in as great strength as possible, so as at least to prevent the bazooka missiles exploding.

As I do all this I am overcome with sadness. It is 12 years to the day - 13 March - since I entered this Ministry as Minister. It is the worst conceivable omen for the next twelve years.


* The Führer than asks me over for a short visit. During the interview I have with him he is very impressed by my account of things. I give him a description of the devastation which is being wrought and tell him particularly of the increasing fury of the Mosquito raids which take place every evening. I cannot prevent myself voicing sharp criticism of Goring and the Luftwaffe.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif


Spoiling a birthday party
- Daylight raid on Berlin radio station 1943

When British Intelligence found out that Goering, the Head of the German Luftwaffe, was to give a major speech on Berlin radio at 11.00am on 30th January 1943 to mark the 10th anniversary of the Nazi Party, Bomber Command could not resist - two Mosquitoes raced over Berlin in broad daylight and bombed the radio station as Goering went live on air - disrupting the whole propaganda event.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

rnzoli
07-14-2007, 07:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">On 18 February 1944, 18 Mosquitos from Number 21, 464, and 481 Squadrons attacked the prison at Amiens, France, under OPERATION JERICHO. The objective was to "tumble down the walls" of the prison to allow condemned French Resistance fighters being held there to escape. The attack was successful, with about 250 prisoners managing to escape. However, about a hundred prisoners were killed in the raid, and a good number of those who escaped were quickly recaptured. The raid was led by RAF Group Captain Charles Pickard, whose Mosquito was shot down by FW-190s during the action. He and his navigator are now at rest under a memorial in Amiens. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This mission can be flown on the 102nd COOP server, 'DSC MAP Special Jericho' will bring it up. Briefing for allied is here (http://web.t-online.hu/rnzoli/IL2DSC/cmirko_mission_briefings/SO/04/01_red.html).

Photos included in that briefing

http://web.t-online.hu/rnzoli/IL2DSC/cmirko_mission_briefings/SO/04/Photo-1-(03).jpg

http://web.t-online.hu/rnzoli/IL2DSC/cmirko_mission_briefings/SO/04/Photo-2.jpg

Xiolablu3
07-14-2007, 04:28 PM
Soubnds awesome.

I am going to force myself to try out your server soon Rnzoli.

I KNOW its going to be awesome but for some reason I have never taken the plunge.

See you on there soon, for sure. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

jimDG
07-14-2007, 07:40 PM
I don't like the Mossie and the BF110 even though I like heavy fighters. They have zero controllability at low speeds (some slats may have fixed this), at least in the game. Can't hard turn, can't BnZ with low speed at the top position of the BnZ cicle. This means you have to be pulling moderately hard even at the top of the cycle to go down again - which effectively gets rid of lots of E.
Too spin prone, both of them. Should you find yourself BnZed while in a BF110 or Mossie you can't do anything - can't point you nose upwards towards the attacker for any extended period of time, as they will both spin at the end.
Even at 350 km/h hard turns they both have the nasty habit to sideslip and attempt spinning. You just cant aim properly if you constantly have to play the rudder in a hard turn.

Rear gunner is plus though. It scares people from staying on your tail for two long, or making good gunnery runs, even if it won't down anyone.
As I have said before, I will go with the Il2 field mod, or the il10 any day vs their contemporary fighters, flown fighter like, of course - no payload and enough height. Unlike the twins (P38 excluded), you can safely loose speed in an il2 - from a control point of view.

P38 could have also been a nice fighter, but is sorely lacking in armament. The whole point of a heavy fighter is to carry heavy armament, so that you can kill things quickly, without a protracted dogfight. And by heavy armament I mean either heavy guns, and/or lots of ammo. Lots of ammo allows spray and pray at large distances, until things connect - i.e. you can shoot from afar.

JG53Frankyboy
07-15-2007, 03:53 AM
as a historical sidenote:
the german Bf110Cs had a bad stand against swiss Bf109Es in 1940...............
Göings's "punishment expedition" ented not succesfull on 8.June , 4 of II/ZG 1 ~28 Bf110s were lost , non ofthe 15 swiss fighters.