BF 109 k4 weapons update?

[jester_]

I disagree. This is Digital Combat Simulator, so therefor taking away the majority of non internal weapons and calling it a release shouldn't be acceptable.

 

Imagine if the F-5 was released without its Mk. 82's or rocket pods?

Imagine if the A-10 was released without its AGM-65's or GBU's?

Imagine if the MiG-21 was released without its S-24's and rocket pods?

 

Just like on the 109, this would remove a large part of its combat effectiveness and with no other module have we seen a transition from beta to full release with the majority of weapon systems missing.

 

Honestly there just aren't as many people flying the WWII planes as there are flying the other planes.

 

The 109 can do everything it was designed to do right now. It can fight planes, and it can bomb ground targets. Whether or not it has rockets and gunpods is really just icing on the cake.

[NineLine]

I disagree. This is Digital Combat Simulator, so therefor taking away the majority of non internal weapons and calling it a release shouldn't be acceptable.

 

Imagine if the F-5 was released without its Mk. 82's or rocket pods?

Imagine if the A-10 was released without its AGM-65's or GBU's?

Imagine if the MiG-21 was released without its S-24's and rocket pods?

 

Just like on the 109, this would remove a large part of its combat effectiveness and with no other module have we seen a transition from beta to full release with the majority of weapon systems missing.

 

It was never a listed feature, they will come like the 190 I am sure, but it wasnt enough to move it to release. I am sure the aircraft you listed are also missing weapons due to lack of info, classification or just not enough manpower to get it done.

[Art-J]

Andy, I was talking about the fusing for R4Ms, as these were the ones the reply above mine referred to. As for the WGr 21 You are most probably right.

[shagrat]

I disagree. This is Digital Combat Simulator, so therefor taking away the majority of non internal weapons and calling it a release shouldn't be acceptable.

 

Imagine if the F-5 was released without its Mk. 82's or rocket pods?

Imagine if the A-10 was released without its AGM-65's or GBU's?

Imagine if the MiG-21 was released without its S-24's and rocket pods?

 

Just like on the 109, this would remove a large part of its combat effectiveness and with no other module have we seen a transition from beta to full release with the majority of weapon systems missing.

First of all, the F-5E is indeed missing the Napalm canisters, so what?

I haven't seen complaints about that most effective and iconic(!) weapon, either.

The A-10C has no laser guided Mavericks, due to contract reasons, etc.

 

Second, the comparison is a bit moot, as the "combat effectiveness" and majority of weapons actually in use was different for the late war Bf. 109 K-4 compared to the Emil and Gustav.

It flew primarily as an interceptor and fighter, against heavy bombers and their escorts...

 

Third, as Sith said. It is likely, once the tweaks on the R4M for the Fw-190 have been done, that we get them on the 109, as well.

[Skjold]

First of all, the F-5E is indeed missing the Napalm canisters, so what?

I haven't seen complaints about that most effective and iconic(!) weapon, either.

The A-10C has no laser guided Mavericks, due to contract reasons, etc.

 

Second, the comparison is a bit moot, as the "combat effectiveness" and majority of weapons actually in use was different for the late war Bf. 109 K-4 compared to the Emil and Gustav.

It flew primarily as an interceptor and fighter, against heavy bombers and their escorts...

 

Third, as Sith said. It is likely, once the tweaks on the R4M for the Fw-190 have been done, that we get them on the 109, as well.

 

I did say the majority of the weapon systems, but yes you are correct that some weapons are missing for various reasons on almost all modules. My intention is not to start an argument here, but gunpods and Werfer-Granate 21 were primarily used against bomber formations on interception missions. Correct me if i am wrong as you seem to be knowledgable about the 109 platform. The lack of air-to-air rockets also objectively reduces the combat efficency of the aircraft since their purpose was to be able to engage bomber formations out of range from their defensive .50 cals which the 30 mm Mk 108 simply is not capable of doing.

 

I fully understand that ED has a lot on their plate and if it will get added in the future i have no objections and i've said my peace now. :thumbup:

Edited August 21, 2016 by Skjold
Scratch the R4M stuff, as i confused them as being carried by the 109's.

[shagrat]

About the "knowledgeable", not that much, only what you read here and there...

What I've read is, pilots disliked the additional armament, as it drastically reduced maneuverability and made them sitting ducks for the escorts.

These configurations were tested, yes, but the disadvantage most likely out weighed the extra punch.

 

Only citation I know of, was about JG.27 who got the gunpods for their Kurfüsts and rarely used them for their drag and reduced maneuverability.

 

I hope we get these additional weapons, also. Just for the option to try them, but they seem to be much of a game changer, historically.

[NineLine]

I did say the majority of the weapon systems, but yes you are correct that some weapons are missing for various reasons on almost all modules. My intention is not to start an argument here, but gunpods and Werfer-Granate 21 were primarily used against bomber formations on interception missions. Correct me if i am wrong as you seem to be knowledgable about the 109 platform. The lack of air-to-air rockets also objectively reduces the combat efficency of the aircraft since their purpose was to be able to engage bomber formations out of range from their defensive .50 cals which the 30 mm Mk 108 simply is not capable of doing.

 

I fully understand that ED has a lot on their plate and if it will get added in the future i have no objections and i've said my peace now. :thumbup:

 

As we dont have bomber formations to engage right now (from ED officially) you can see why those would/could be added later.

[Racoon]

As we dont have bomber formations to engage right now (from ED officially) you can see why those would/could be added later.

 

Exactly!

Release state doesn't mean all works are done for this plane. This means we're feel ourselves Ok with plane's behaviour.

As I mentioned many times here there are a lot of works for WWII modules ahead. Existed and new ones.

Stay tuned!

[MiloMorai]

Historically were the WG21s every used by the Bf109K-4?

[rel4y]

I dont think there are any pictures, afaik only the prototype models had all the wirings for the BR 21 modification installed from factory. These include the activation/ selection wiring and switch (Fl. 32346-3) for the Wrf. Gr. 21/ R4M rockets (below the gear indicator), as well as the explosive charge wiring and switch for the emergency detachment of the BR 21 tubes (below the MW50 switch in DCS, in reality most likely above the MW50 switch). If the BR 21 mod was actually used on K-4s is speculative, but all the prerequisites were in place for very early models. Later production models definitely had the explosive charge switch (Fl. 32345-2) and wiring removed. The Wrf. Gr. 21 Rüstsatz afaik was canceled for the K-4, while e.g. for the G-10 there apparently is an official designation in form of Rüstsatz VII. It may have been the same for the K-4 initially.

Edited August 22, 2016 by rel4y

[EliteKatze]

I am personally rather dissapointed over the release, i would have expected wing gunpods to be added to the K-4 as well as rockets.

 

There is both keybinds and cockpit functionality for selecting and firing rockets as well as turning gun pods on/off. Now i deeply regret buying this plane.

 

where is the rocket switch, i only know of the wing cannon switch below the MW50 switch

[EliteKatze]

Honestly there just aren't as many people flying the WWII planes as there are flying the other planes.

 

The 109 can do everything it was designed to do right now. It can fight planes, and it can bomb ground targets. Whether or not it has rockets and gunpods is really just icing on the cake.

 

the point is, that people - including me - put 50€ to the table for a module, that turned out to be missing have of its functionality, and thats the shame. Other modules like the A10C have pretty much all the weaponry necessary to use it in all ways possible

[snowsniper]

Exactly!

Release state doesn't mean all works are done for this plane. This means we're feel ourselves Ok with plane's behaviour.

As I mentioned many times here there are a lot of works for WWII modules ahead. Existed and new ones.

Stay tuned!

 

nice to hear such a thing...

 

is there only one chance to remove one day the 109 unrealistic trim system, after release ?

 

I trim full dive before take off. and once airborne I've got another available full dive trim to do. doesn't feel like an high fidelity aircraft with such a "neat" trick to simulate the gravity center and position of wheels ahead...

but maybe I misanderstood something about the 109 triming in the simulation / vs real 109 trimming possibilities.

[Skjold]

Exactly!

Release state doesn't mean all works are done for this plane. This means we're feel ourselves Ok with plane's behaviour.

As I mentioned many times here there are a lot of works for WWII modules ahead. Existed and new ones.

Stay tuned!

 

Thanks for the reply Racoon! Good to know that the WW2 birds aren't forgotten.

[shagrat]

nice to hear such a thing...

 

is there only one chance to remove one day the 109 unrealistic trim system, after release ?

 

I trim full dive before take off. and once airborne I've got another available full dive trim to do. doesn't feel like an high fidelity aircraft with such a "neat" trick to simulate the gravity center and position of wheels ahead...

but maybe I misanderstood something about the 109 triming in the simulation / vs real 109 trimming possibilities.

 

You did read the manual? Section "Flight characteristics"? The line where it says: "When you retract the landing gear, the airplane becomes tail-heavy"?

 

The trim system is extremely accurate, to the point, where you can have the ground crew "preset" the trim (Special Options in the main menu), like in real life.

Keep in mind the trim handrail does only change the horizontal stabilizer (elevator).

The pilot usually needs to retrim after any major changes in speed, attitude or configuration, e.g. gears, flaps or even weight changes in the tanks over time...

 

It's pretty accurate, actually and the total opposite of "unrealistic". ;)

[LeCuvier]

nice to hear such a thing...

 

is there only one chance to remove one day the 109 unrealistic trim system, after release ?

 

I trim full dive before take off. and once airborne I've got another available full dive trim to do. doesn't feel like an high fidelity aircraft with such a "neat" trick to simulate the gravity center and position of wheels ahead...

but maybe I misanderstood something about the 109 triming in the simulation / vs real 109 trimming possibilities.

Based on your comment I just tried to see if maybe there was a new bug. But I cannot reproduce what you state. For the takeoff run I trim fully nose-down (value of 2). After takeoff the little window still shows "2" and it is not possible to trim even more nose-down. Instead, I have to trim slightly nose-up to about 1.5 when I'm near 300 km/h. So no, I cannot confirm what you say.

[Racoon]

nice to hear such a thing...

 

is there only one chance to remove one day the 109 unrealistic trim system, after release ?

 

I trim full dive before take off. and once airborne I've got another available full dive trim to do. doesn't feel like an high fidelity aircraft with such a "neat" trick to simulate the gravity center and position of wheels ahead...

but maybe I misanderstood something about the 109 triming in the simulation / vs real 109 trimming possibilities.

 

Trims as realistic as possible. Main "problem" here is that trimmer rotation is not equal to both directions. So the center of axis is not a zero point of trimmer. Check trim indicator for real numbers.

[LeCuvier]

Bombs, Gunpods, Rockets on Bf-109

 

I have tried bombing missions with the Bf-109 and even with unlimited weapons activated it took me a long time before I hit a tank because the REVI is useless for ground targets. But I have to dive and at the same time the tank is firing back at me with its 1980 vintage machine gun, and if I'm out of luck there is a ZSU-23 spraying me with lethal rounds and my life ends right there. The Bf-109 like the FW-190 is a light fighter and not an attack aircraft.

If one day we get a JU-87 with the anti-tank gun (37mm I believe) I will be tempted, hoping there will be some agile fighters to escort me.

With the FW-190 I tried the Werfergranate 21 against Markindel's B-17 and against docile C-130 and found it totally useless. Against an escorted bomber stream it's a recipe for suicide as the WG21 pod induces a lot of drag and makes you an easy target even before you get close to the bombers. I'm not interested in that weapon at all.

Again with the FW-190 I tried the R4M against ground targets and docile C-130 and found them a nice supplement to the MG and cannon. It could also work against bomber streams if you attack in large formations. But the most effective platform for these rockets is the ME-262 which has a good chance to hit the bombers and run from the Mustangs.

Under-wing gunpods? We know that the Luftwaffe pilots hated them for good reaons, and I'm not interested.

[Dwarf_Hunter]

Honestly there just aren't as many people flying the WWII planes as there are flying the other planes.

 

The 109 can do everything it was designed to do right now. It can fight planes, and it can bomb ground targets. Whether or not it has rockets and gunpods is really just icing on the cake.

 

The Kurfurst is my favorite prop plane of all planes, hard to handle, always challenging :joystick: PLay it 30% of my dcs play time.

[MiloMorai]

I have tried bombing missions with the Bf-109 and even with unlimited weapons activated it took me a long time before I hit a tank because the REVI is useless for ground targets. But I have to dive and at the same time the tank is firing back at me with its 1980 vintage machine gun, and if I'm out of luck there is a ZSU-23 spraying me with lethal rounds and my life ends right there. The Bf-109 like the FW-190 is a light fighter and not an attack aircraft.

If one day we get a JU-87 with the anti-tank gun (37mm I believe) I will be tempted, hoping there will be some agile fighters to escort me.

With the FW-190 I tried the Werfergranate 21 against Markindel's B-17 and against docile C-130 and found it totally useless. Against an escorted bomber stream it's a recipe for suicide as the WG21 pod induces a lot of drag and makes you an easy target even before you get close to the bombers. I'm not interested in that weapon at all.

Again with the FW-190 I tried the R4M against ground targets and docile C-130 and found them a nice supplement to the MG and cannon. It could also work against bomber streams if you attack in large formations. But the most effective platform for these rockets is the ME-262 which has a good chance to hit the bombers and run from the Mustangs.

Under-wing gunpods? We know that the Luftwaffe pilots hated them for good reaons, and I'm not interested.

 

These aircraft also carried rockets and bombs. Both of these were much more devastating when they hit armor. However that is the problem; they had to hit their target. Both bombs and rockets were utterly abysmal in terms of accuracy. A trial conducted by the RAF had fired 64 rockets from 4 Tiffies(2 flights) at a stationary Panther painted white. A total of 3 hits were recorded giving the rockets a 4.69% accuracy rating in the most perfect of circumstances. Near misses did no damage to the tank. In real combat the Panzers would have some some camouflage, some flak protection(which downed hundreds of Allied fighter-bombers over NW Europe and greatly reduced accuracy of bombs and rockets), and crews that would know to seek cover when they realize they are being shot at. Bombs were even worse in regards to accuracy. It had been concluded that overall it took 800 rockets or 3500 bombs to hit a tank sized target in battle conditions.

 

http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/04/ground-attack-aircraft-myth-of-the-tank-busters/

[Kurfürst]

Hi All,

 

I have been under the impression that the 21cm rocket was designed as an anti air rocket for use against bomber formations with time delay fuse and was modified with a proximity fuse derived from the 88 aaa round, and then modified again with time delay/impact fuse for ground attack capability, Am I mistaken? if I could figure out how to post a link, I will post info with my posts. its amazing what you can find by searching wwII weapons but distinguishing fact from fiction an be a challenge

 

Andy

 

The 21 cm rockets were originally a field rocket artillery piece (for the 21 cm, 5 tube Nebelwerfer), it was a second thought to use them on aircraft in 1943 as a stand-off weapon against US heavy bomber formations, equipped with a timed fuse in that utility.

 

Its a pretty serious piece, if you glance at the picture, it carried cc. 40 kg warhead a 10 kg explosive charge.

 

 

In any case, the 109K is sorely missing its loadout. What's it now, a droptank or a 250 kg bomb? That's a serious let off.

 

The real thing was sanctioned to carry

 

250 kg or 500 kg bombs of

- SC series fragmentation type

- SD series SAP (D= thick walled)

- AB series Cluster bombs, load with either -

-- SD 2 "Butterly" fragmentation SD 2 bomblets or

-- SD 4 HL HEAT AT bomblets

-- a great variation of other cluster bomblet mixes existed but these two were the most important

 

-21 cm WGr 21 rockets (early versions only but that's what we have)

-2 cm MG 151/20 gondola cannon

 

Now the 2cm gunpods and the 21 cm rockets were rarely carried, because they fell out of preference by late 1944 because of Allied escorts, but the bombs were carried fairly often, i.e. against advancing US troops in Bavaria.

 

Its really a let down that the module does not support but a fraction of the possible loadouts, especially as the bombs for example are re-usable also for 190/262 too. So the only loadout that is 109K specific is the gundpods and the WGr 21 launchers.

Edited August 23, 2016 by Kurfürst

[shagrat]

The 21 cm rockets were originally a field rocket artillery piece (for the 21 cm, 5 tube Nebelwerfer), it was a second thought to use them on aircraft in 1943 as a stand-off weapon against US heavy bomber formations, equipped with a timed fuse in that utility.

 

Its a pretty serious piece, if you glance at the picture, it carried cc. 40 kg warhead a 10 kg explosive charge.

 

 

In any case, the 109K is sorely missing its loadout. What's it now, a droptank or a 250 kg bomb? That's a serious let off.

 

The real thing was sanctioned to carry

 

250 kg or 500 kg bombs of

- SC series fragmentation type

- SD series SAP (D= thick walled)

- AB series Cluster bombs, load with either -

-- SD 2 "Butterly" fragmentation SD 2 bomblets or

-- SD 4 HL HEAT AT bomblets

-- a great variation of other cluster bomblet mixes existed but these two were the most important

 

-21 cm WGr 21 rockets (early versions only but that's what we have)

-2 cm MG 151/20 gondola cannon

 

Now the 2cm gunpods and the 21 cm rockets were rarely carried, because they fell out of preference by late 1944 because of Allied escorts, but the bombs were carried fairly often, i.e. against advancing US troops in Bavaria.

 

Its really a let down that the module does not support but a fraction of the possible loadouts, especially as the bombs for example are re-usable also for 190/262 too. So the only loadout that is 109K specific is the gundpods and the WGr 21 launchers.

Currently it is 250Kg and 500Kg SC bombs or the droptank.

 

And as Racoon said, development is not finished, just out of Beta state...:smilewink:

[rel4y]

Any info if rudder authority is being looked at as well? I posted a report in the bugs section a while ago. I have the fear that out of beta somehow sounds like carved in stone. :unsure:

[snowsniper]

@Lecuvier @Racoon @Shagrat

 

after a new test tonight with 50% Fuel and no bombs or fuel tank. You're all right, everything is OK with the trim.

in dive, take off, once airborne and gear retracted, flap off, flap on. it feels good as it should & she lands easy in three point position.

a pleasure to fly with these beautie. ;-)

sorry for my last inadequat post.

[shagrat]

No problemo. Took myself quite a while to get used to this beast, but once you get the right hints it works pretty well...

Next thing that is strange, once you reach height and cruise you leave her at 0.9 to 1.0ata which feels like idle... :D